|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
|| ||Will Drewry <wad-AT-chromium.org> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH v9 05/13] seccomp_filter: Document what seccomp_filter is
and how it works. |
|| ||Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:07:05 +0200|
|| ||James Morris <jmorris-AT-namei.org>,
Chris Evans <scarybeasts-AT-gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
djm-AT-mindrot.org, segoon-AT-openwall.com, kees.cook-AT-canonical.com,
rostedt-AT-goodmis.org, fweisbec-AT-gmail.com, tglx-AT-linutronix.de,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap-AT-xenotime.net>, linux-doc-AT-vger.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis-AT-redhat.com>,
|| ||Article, Thread
* Will Drewry <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > * James Morris <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Will Drewry wrote:
> >> > Since it seems that there'll be consumers (openssh, vsftpd,
> >> > kvm/qemu, chromium, chromium os) and feedback quieted down, what
> >> > are the next steps to get this to a pull/no-pull decision points
> >> > (or at least some Ack's or Nack's)? I know this patch series
> >> > crosses a number of maintainers, and I never know exactly what's
> >> > next when the feedback slows down.
> >> Are there any outstanding objections to this approach? How do the
> >> tracing folk feel about it?
> > I think i outlined my objections a couple of times and haven't seen
> > them addressed.
> After our last discussion, I suggested changes which I then undertook
> and reposted. Those changes have been posted for over two weeks.
Have you addressed my basic objection of why we should go for a more
complex and less capable variant over a shared yet more capable
You are pushing the 'filter engine' approach currently, not the
(much) more unified 'event filters' approach.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)