BUG: python comment incorrectly lists the MASKED_EQ mask as "datum_b"

[flx42]

From here:

libseccomp/src/python/seccomp.pyx

Line 49 in 8ad3638

MASKED_EQ - (arg & datum_b) == datum_a

My line of thought is the following, from the manual:

libseccomp/doc/man/man3/seccomp_rule_add.3

Lines 208 to 214 in 8ad3638

	SCMP_CMP(
	.I arg
	, SCMP_CMP_MASKED_EQ ,
	.I mask
	,
	.I datum
	)

And the arguments from SCMP_CMP fill up this struct:

libseccomp/include/seccomp.h.in

Lines 94 to 99 in 8ad3638

	struct scmp_arg_cmp {
	unsigned int arg; /**< argument number, starting at 0 */
	enum scmp_compare op; /**< the comparison op, e.g. SCMP_CMP_* */
	scmp_datum_t datum_a;
	scmp_datum_t datum_b;
	};

In addition:

libseccomp/src/db.c

Lines 1867 to 1869 in 8ad3638

	case SCMP_CMP_MASKED_EQ:
	chain[arg_num].mask = arg_data.datum_a;
	chain[arg_num].datum = arg_data.datum_b;

So mask == datum_a, no? So is the Python comment invalid or am I missing something?

[pcmoore]

So mask == datum_a, no? So is the Python comment invalid or am I missing something?

You're not missing anything, you're correct - thanks for finding this! Would you be kind enough to submit a PR to fix this?