entry, treewide: Make syscall_enter_from_user_mode[_work]() indicate syscall execution

The return values of syscall_enter_from_user_mode[_work]() are
non-intuitive. Both functions return the syscall number which should be
invoked by the architecture specific syscall entry code. The returned
number can be:

  - the unmodified syscall number which was handed in by the caller

  - a modified syscall number (ptrace, seccomp, trace/probe/bpf)

That has an additional twist. If the return value is -1L then the caller is
not allowed to modify the return value as that indicates that the modifying
entity requests to abort the syscall and set the return value already. That
can obviously not be differentiated from a syscall which handed in -1 as
syscall number.

The most trivial way to deal with that is:

    set_return_value(regs, -ENOSYS);
    nr = syscall_enter_from_user_mode(regs, nr);
    if (valid(nr))
    	handle_syscall(regs, nr);

That's what LOONGARCH, RISCV, and X86 do. But PowerPC and S390 do not
preset the return value, so when user space hands in -1 and there is
nothing setting the return value in the entry work code, then the syscall
is skipped but the return value is whatever random data has been in the
return value register.

Change the return values of syscall_enter_from_user_mode[_work]() to
boolean and return false, when either ptrace or seccomp request to skip the
syscall. If they return true, update the syscall number as it might have
been changed.

That results in slightly different behaviour of the architectures versus
tracing.

If the syscall tracepoint has probe/BPF attached, those might set the
syscall number to -1 and also set the return value. PowerPC and S390 will
then overwrite that value with -ENOSYS. The other architectures will just
ignore it like any other invalid syscall and use the modified one.

Originally-by: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>