Re: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > My point is simply:
> > 
> >  The help text for an option you need only under very specific 
> >  circumstances shouldn't sound as if this option was nearly was 
> >  mandatory.
> 
> I think the sort of sell-your-cycles service which this patch enables is a
> neat idea, and one which is worth supporting, especially as the kernel
> patch is so tiny.  So we want as many machines as possible to support it. 
> So people don't need a special kernel just to join in.
> 
> Others may disagree, although nobody has.
> 
> And the patch is tiny.

see my earlier counter-arguments in the thread starting at:

  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110630922022462&w=2

end result of the thread: seccomp is completely unnecessary code-bloat
and can be equivalently implemented via ptrace. I cannot believe this
made it into -BK ...

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/