Skip to content

seccomp: ignore unsupported wait-kill flag probe#5347

Open
pacoxu wants to merge 1 commit into
opencontainers:mainfrom
pacoxu:patch-1
Open

seccomp: ignore unsupported wait-kill flag probe#5347
pacoxu wants to merge 1 commit into
opencontainers:mainfrom
pacoxu:patch-1

Conversation

@pacoxu

@pacoxu pacoxu commented Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

See kubernetes/kubernetes#140039.

The logic here was added in #5172.

@rata

rata commented Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@pacoxu did you also verify this solves the issue on CI somehow?

@rata rata left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR! This almost LGTM. If this fixes the issue, I'm fine using this as a quick-fix to release 1.5.1

However, I'd also like to understand how runc is being built in kubernetes CI (not blocking the merge). I guess it is being compiled with an old seccomp headers (< 2.6.0), but run with new headers (>= 2.6.0). Can you confirm this is true?

Comment on lines +676 to +677
if waitKill, err := filter.GetWaitKill(); err != nil {
return 0, false, fmt.Errorf("unable to fetch SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE_RECV bit: %w", err)
} else if waitKill {
flags |= uint(C.C_FILTER_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE_RECV)
}
}
if !errors.Is(err, unix.EINVAL) {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe fold it with the err != nil condition?

Signed-off-by: Paco Xu <roollingstone@gmail.com>
@lifubang

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I guess it is being compiled with an old seccomp headers (< 2.6.0), but run with new headers (>= 2.6.0).

This is precisely the situation I aimed to prevent for libpathrs. A similar version check might also be necessary for libseccomp, as proposed in #5344. However, implementing it there would constitute a break change. If you'd like to discuss this further, let's continue the conversation in #5344.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants