From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751260AbWGMHsP (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:48:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751504AbWGMHsP (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:48:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.10.83]:52452 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751260AbWGMHsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:48:14 -0400 Message-ID: <44B5F9E6.8070501@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:44:38 -0400 From: James Bruce User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: andrea@cpushare.com CC: Andrew Morton , 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, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n References: <20060630014050.GI19712@stusta.de> <20060630045228.GA14677@opteron.random> <20060630094753.GA14603@elte.hu> <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> In-Reply-To: <20060712185103.f41b51d2.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:07:32 +0200 > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> Despite good resons to apply the patch, it has not been applied yet, >> with no explanation. > > I queued the below. Andrea claims that it'll reduce seccomp overhead to > literally zero. > > But looking at it, I think it's a bit confused. The patch needs > s/DISABLE_TSC/ENABLE_TSC/ to make it right. <-- snip --> Andrea, what happened to Andrew James Wade's rewording [1] of your config help? It seemed to disappear from what was submitted to akpm. To "mathematically prevent covert channels" is far too strong a claim to make, since you only handle the case of TSC-related timing attacks. AJW's wording is much better, so please don't drop it. Of course, if the new wording will be included in some forthcoming patch that also makes Linus happy [2], then never mind. - Jim Bruce [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/10/440 [2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/12/328