From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964865AbWGMJWA (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:22:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964866AbWGMJV7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:21:59 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:22975 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964865AbWGMJV7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:21:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:18:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: andrea@cpushare.com Cc: bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org, bunk@stusta.de, rlrevell@joe-job.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n Message-Id: <20060713021818.b0c0093e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060713083441.GD28310@opteron.random> References: <20060630145825.GA10667@opteron.random> <20060711073625.GA4722@elte.hu> <20060711141709.GE7192@opteron.random> <1152628374.3128.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060711153117.GJ7192@opteron.random> <1152635055.18028.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060712210732.GA10182@elte.hu> <20060712185103.f41b51d2.akpm@osdl.org> <44B5F9E6.8070501@andrew.cmu.edu> <20060713083441.GD28310@opteron.random> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:34:41 +0200 andrea@cpushare.com 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? hm, p73wtain80h.fsf@verdi.suse.de, 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.