Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Paul Moore
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:31:46 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 July 2013 21:05, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > >> > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Peter Maydell
On 18 July 2013 21:05, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: >> > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much >> > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at pr

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Paul Moore
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present > > we are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Peter Maydell
On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present we > are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) ...AArch64 ? :-) -- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Paul Moore
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 06:37:15 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 18/07/2013 18:35, Eduardo Otubo ha scritto: > > On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Eduardo Otubo writes: > >>> Hello all, > >> > >>> In this small patch series I basically: > >> Cover letter should be marked [PATCH

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 18/07/2013 18:35, Eduardo Otubo ha scritto: > > > On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Eduardo Otubo writes: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> In this small patch series I basically: >> >> Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats >> filtering. >> >> Would like to

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Eduardo Otubo
On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: Eduardo Otubo writes: Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats filtering. Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. I'm running some tests

Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-18 Thread Anthony Liguori
Eduardo Otubo writes: > Hello all, > > In this small patch series I basically: Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats filtering. Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > v2 update: > - set libseccomp 2.1.0 a

[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-16 Thread Eduardo Otubo
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: v2 update: - set libseccomp 2.1.0 as requirement on configure script. - removed setrlimit and added sendfile64 to the whitelist. 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translate

[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-15 Thread Eduardo Otubo
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been runni

[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6

2013-07-15 Thread Eduardo Otubo
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been runni