Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:34:41 +0200
andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Both patches are obsoleted by the new logic in the context switch that
> uses the bitflags to enter the slow path, see Chuck's patch.

What darn patch?

<looks>

hm, p73wtain80h.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, who appears to be Andi has (again)
removed me from cc.  Possibly an act of mercy ;)

> As long as seccomp won't be nuked from the kernel, Chuck's patch seems
> the way to go.

I see "[compile tested only; requires just-sent fix to i386 system.h]", so
an appropriate next step would be for you to review, test, sign-off and
forward it, please.

> But the point is that I've no idea anymore what will happen to
> seccomp so perhaps all patches will be useless.

Shrug.  If we can optimise the current code, fine.  If there's a default-on
config option that makes no-TSC seccomp have zero overhead, better.  If that
makes us go back to doing useful stuff, perfect.
-
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/