RFE: Sync to Linux 6.11 syscall definitions

[xen0n]

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]

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

[xen0n]

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]

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]

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,

1. branch linux-6.1.y https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-6.1.y&id=68a35d0abf8059ee41f164093c700297343101b2
2. branch linux-6.6.y https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-6.6.y&id=9d91b004df9a6aa2487661e52a398fd808184955
3. branch linux-6.10.y https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-6.10.y&id=268a625399c63083aeb9c4fc818f5f2d916d5adb
4. branch linux-6.11.y https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-6.11.y&id=7697a0fe0154468f5df35c23ebd7aa48994c2cdc

• 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]

@drakenclimber @pcmoore

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

[rusty-snake]

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]

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

[xen0n]

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]

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]

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]

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

[pcmoore]

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

[pcmoore]

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