Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BUG: the seccomp_rule_add(2) manpage misspelling #450

Open
pcmoore opened this issue Jan 24, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

BUG: the seccomp_rule_add(2) manpage misspelling #450

pcmoore opened this issue Jan 24, 2025 · 0 comments

Comments

@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Jan 24, 2025

The section describing SCMP_ACT_NOTIFY misspells the "seccomp_notif_fd(3)" function, it should be "seccomp_notify_fd(3)".

       SCMP_ACT_NOTIFY
              A monitoring process will be notified when a process running  the
              seccomp filter calls a syscall that matches the filter rule.  The
              process  that  invokes  the syscall waits in the kernel until the
              monitoring process has responded via seccomp_notify_respond (3) .

              When a filter utilizing SCMP_ACT_NOTIFY is loaded into  the  ker‐
              nel,  the kernel generates a notification fd that must be used to
              communicate between the monitoring process  and  the  process(es)
              being filtered.  See seccomp_notif_fd (3) for more information.
@pcmoore pcmoore added this to the v2.6.1 milestone Jan 24, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant