On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 15:28 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:36 -0500, Will Drewry wrote: >> > Facilitate the use of CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER by wrapping compatibility >> > system call numbering for execve and selecting HAVE_SECCOMP_FILTER. >> > >> > v9: rebase on to bccaeafd7c117acee36e90d37c7e05c19be9e7bf >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <[email protected]> >> >> Seen these around for a while ... :-) >> >> I don't see a harm in the patches per-se tho I haven't reviewed the >> actual seccomp filter stuff and it's good (or bad) behaviour on ppc. > > Did that stuff every got anywhere ? I don't see HAVE_SECCOMP_FILTER > upsteam ... should I just drop the powerpc patch from patchwork ?
Thanks for following up! At present, it stalled out, so I think it'd make sense to just drop it. I will repost the series soon-ish and see if any progress can be made. [I've explored a number of alternative approaches and still think something along the seccomp_filter lines is still rational.] cheers! will _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
