RFE: Sync to Linux 6.12 syscall definitions

xen0n commented 3 months ago

The arch-syscall-validate script updates will need to be backported to v2.5.x later, for continuing to sync aarch64 and riscv64 that got refactored to source the syscall definitions from a syscall.tbl instead of asm-generic/unistd.h.

coveralls commented 3 months ago

coverage: 89.454%. remained the same when pulling d9098019cf771e4c557db4cef943a0dedacbe749 on xen0n:linux-6.11-syscalls into 9c4eb5eaf0882eabd945476117a124065c40b422 on seccomp:main.

xen0n commented 3 months ago

After the change, linux-headers >= 6.11 will be required for ~~native LoongArch~~ all builds, for definitions of new syscalls introduced in this version.

lixing-star commented 1 month ago

After the change, linux-headers >= 6.11 will be required for ~native LoongArch~ all builds, for definitions of new syscalls introduced in this version.

this is really helpful for LoongArch, thanks.

Dandan336 commented 1 month ago

Hi maintainers,

About defining ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h 'LoongArch: Define __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h' 1 was merged in linux upstream 2. 'LoongArch: Define ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h' was supported in the stable version of linux, as follows,

The results of the test cases Based on main branch of libseccomp, I pulled this pull-request 'RFE: Sync to Linux 6.11 syscall definitions' submitted by xen0n. I built libseccomp project on Debian loong64 rootfs (the verson of linux-libc-dev is 6.11.2-1), there is 0 failed or errored test case.The results of the test cases are as follows,
```
Regression Test Summary
tests run: 5084
tests skipped: 124
tests passed: 5084
tests failed: 0
tests errored: 0
=================================
PASS: regression
=============
1 test passed
=============
```
Please review.

yetist commented 1 month ago

@drakenclimber @pcmoore

Could you review this PR? Thanks. Also, I would like to know when v2.6.0 will be released.

rusty-snake commented 1 month ago

Also, I would like to know when v2.6.0 will be released.

https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp?tab=readme-ov-file#release-process

TL;DR: When it's ready.

pcmoore commented 1 month ago

Just one small comment/clarification/question above, but otherwise I think this looks good. Thanks for all your work on this @xen0n!

xen0n commented 1 month ago

This is now rebased and updated to reflect Linux v6.12-rc5 syscall info (no new syscalls since 6.11). I have also incorporated @rusty-snake's review comment of keeping PNR allocations consistent with v2.5.x. Tests still pass on aarch64, loongarch64, riscv64 and x86_64.

drakenclimber commented 3 weeks ago

My apologies for being quiet the last few weeks. I've had some other high-priority work on my plate, but I'm thinking I should have some time in the next few weeks to get back into libseccomp work. Thanks all for your patience :).

pcmoore commented 3 weeks ago

This looked good to me and it passed all my tests locally so I merged the PR at HEAD f01e67509e45c672f4bdd643d94d90867cc19d90, thanks for you work and patience @xen0n!

@drakenclimber nothing in here looked controversial and we needed something like this for future syscall updates so I went ahead and merged the PR, if you notice anything awry please let me know and we can revert/fix it.

pcmoore commented 3 weeks ago

While the PR is merged, I'm going to leave this open until I finish the backport to the release-2.5 branch.

pcmoore commented 2 weeks ago

Here is the release-2.5/v2.5.x branch backport: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/439

pcmoore commented 2 weeks ago

With the backport PR now posted, I'm closing this PR, thanks again everyone!

seccomp / libseccomp

RFE: Sync to Linux 6.12 syscall definitions #435