From: Dave Hansen
There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They all have
virtually the same help text except for those referencing the
/proc interface. The /proc interface was removed in 2007.
There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific about SECCOMP except
that the syscalls have per-arch
On 01/13/2014 11:40 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> > +config SECCOMP
>> > + bool
>> > + default y
> Prefer
> def_bool y
I've actually got that already in my updated set that I'll send out when
the merge window opens.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i
On 01/02/2014 12:20 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> ---
>
> linux.git-davehans/arch/arm/Kconfig| 15 +--
> linux.git-davehans/arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 18 +-
> linux.git-davehans/arch/mips/Kconfig | 18 +-
> linux.g
Hi Dave,
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:41:31 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2014 03:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > I don't know, but if it has gone then it is worth mentioning in the
> > commit message
>
> Maybe like this? ;)
>
> > There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They
On 01/04/2014 03:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> I _believe_ the /proc interface has gone away. I can't find any
>> reference to /proc//seccomp in any of the code. Is there some
>> /proc dependency that I'm missing outside of the removed
>> /proc//seccomp interface?
>
> I don't know, but if it
Hi Dave,
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:04:20 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2014 07:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:20:14 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> From: Dave Hansen
> >> There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific about SECCOMP except
> >> that the syscalls have per-
On 01/04/2014 07:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:20:14 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
>> From: Dave Hansen
>> There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific about SECCOMP except
>> that the syscalls have per-architecture definitions, like every
>> other syscall. It is absurd to have
Hi Dave,
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:20:14 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They all have
> virtually the same help text except for those referencing the
> /proc interface which was removed in 2007.
>
> There is *NOTHING* architectu
On 01/02/2014 01:08 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> > +config HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP
>> > + bool
>> > +
>> > +config SECCOMP
>> > + bool
>
> I haven't looked at the other 'CONFIG_HAVE' options, but shouldn't
> 'HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP' be dependent on 'SECCOMP'?
Ahh, you're backwards, but right. :)
I forgot to
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 12:20 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They all have
> virtually the same help text except for those referencing the
> /proc interface which was removed in 2007.
>
> There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific
From: Dave Hansen
There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They all have
virtually the same help text except for those referencing the
/proc interface which was removed in 2007.
There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific about SECCOMP except
that the syscalls have per-architecture definit
11 matches
Mail list logo
