On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> @@ -828,6 +823,11 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const
> struct seccomp_data *sd,
> */
> rmb();
>
> + if (!sd) {
> + populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local);
> + sd = &sd_local;
> + }
> +To me it would be more clean to remove the "if (!sd)" check, case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) in __seccomp_filter() can simply do populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local) unconditionally and pass &sd_local to __seccomp_filter(). Oleg.

