Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:41:34 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory |
| |
Hello Adrian,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:51:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > seccomp might be a nice feature under some circumstances. > But the suggestion in the help text is IMHO too strong and therefore > removed by this patch.
Why too strong? The reason there is a config option is for the embedded space, where clearly they want to compile into the kernel only the strict features they use.
There are no risks in enabling seccomp and the size of the kernel image won't change in any significant way either.
So I'd prefer to keep the "If unsure, say Y." and it seems appropriate to me.
You have to say Y, if later on you want to sell your CPU resources with Cpushare. BTW, you can already test it if you download version 0.8 of the LGPL'd Cpushare software, it'll connect to the server and it'll execute a remote seccomp computation and then it'll hang around until you stop it with ./stop_cpushare.sh (and you will see your client connected in the homepage stats). I didn't finish writing all the code yet but it's already a decent demo for the seccomp part at least.
Anyway the help text is a minor detail after all. Thanks to everyone who helped and provided feedback about the seccomp patch, especially to Andrew. I'm very glad to see it in -mm right now! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |