Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n

[James Bruce]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:07:32 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Despite good resons to apply the patch, it has not been applied yet, 
> > with no explanation.
>
> I queued the below.  Andrea claims that it'll reduce seccomp overhead to
> literally zero.
>
> But looking at it, I think it's a bit confused.  The patch needs
> s/DISABLE_TSC/ENABLE_TSC/ to make it right.
<-- snip -->

Andrea,
what happened to Andrew James Wade's rewording [1] of your config help? 
  It seemed to disappear from what was submitted to akpm.

To "mathematically prevent covert channels" is far too strong a claim to 
make, since you only handle the case of TSC-related timing attacks. 
AJW's wording is much better, so please don't drop it.

Of course, if the new wording will be included in some forthcoming patch 
that also makes Linus happy [2], then never mind.

 - Jim Bruce

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/10/440
[2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/12/328
-
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/