Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-07-23 Thread Sam Hocevar
tags 474648 +patch thanks On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, Sam Hocevar wrote: > Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64 > Version: 2.6.24-5 > Severity: important > > CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always > been harmless. Dear maintainers, any news on this issue? I see th

Processed: Re: Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-07-23 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 474648 linux-2.6 Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed) Warning: Unknown package 'linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64' Bug reassigned from package `linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64' to `linux-2.6'

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-06-12 Thread Sam Hocevar
block 477674 by 474648 thanks On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote: > > > unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away. > > > >Wow, thanks for listening to the users. > > if it had users we already would have been notified. By the way, our first researc

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-07 Thread Sam Hocevar
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > >Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just > > CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me > > where the harm is). > > it adds useless bl

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-07 Thread maximilian attems
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: >Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just > CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me > where the harm is). it adds useless bloat. the SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC is crazy, that is adding a co

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-07 Thread Sam Hocevar
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > > > CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always > > been harmless. Quoting the author: > > > > | On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-07 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:41AM +, maximilian attems wrote: > that is a commercial entity, no need to push that. > > unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away. It seems that you're not really forced to use the commercial side. CPUShare may be use freely if you

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-07 Thread maximilian attems
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always > been harmless. Quoting the author: > > | On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit. > | > | The original seccomp patch for x86 also genera

Bug#474648: please re-enable CONFIG_SECCOMP, it's harmless (and needed)

2008-04-06 Thread Sam Hocevar
Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64 Version: 2.6.24-5 Severity: important CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always been harmless. Quoting the author: | On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit. | | The original seccomp patch for x86 also generat