On 09/19/2007 04:30 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> The reasons against it in the past were that it slowed down
>> the common case (people who aren't using the feature)
>
> It doesn't look like it should.
>
With the latest patches in 2.6.23 it looks like the overhead
is just about zero, so I enab
> The reasons against it in the past were that it slowed down
> the common case (people who aren't using the feature)
It doesn't look like it should.
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/list
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:48:57PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > We have a bug report requesting that we enable SECCOMP:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=295841
> >
> > I suggest we enable it in Fedora 8 but leave it disabled in F7.
> > That way we
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> We have a bug report requesting that we enable SECCOMP:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=295841
>
> I suggest we enable it in Fedora 8 but leave it disabled in F7.
> That way we're not changing a config item in a stable release,
> and we don't have to carry pa
We have a bug report requesting that we enable SECCOMP:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=295841
I suggest we enable it in Fedora 8 but leave it disabled in F7.
That way we're not changing a config item in a stable release,
and we don't have to carry patches to lower the feature's
overh
