Building with seccomp

[Hal Murray]

devel at ntpsec.org said:
> HAVE_SECCOMP can likely be replaced with HAVE_SECCOMP_H in the code.

That seems backwards.  HAVE_SECCOMP_H says (to me) that you have the header.  
You may not have the library and/or maybe seccomp wasn't configured.

seccomp is only referenced by ntpd/ntp_sandbox.c   I was thinking of using 
only ENABLE_SECCOMP with a big comment saying that waf had checked to make 
sure whatever is needed is available.

But which symbol we use is not a big deal.

Humm... How would that test (and similar ones) work in a cross compile?  Is anybody actually cross compiling?  If so, what platform?  Maybe we should setup a test case for a Raspberry Pi.

--------

There is still the problem of should waf crash if you asked for seccomp and it won't work.  Currently, it just prints a warning that is easy to miss in all the other printout.

There is a similar problem at runtime.  Should ntpd crash if it was built with seccomp but gets an error trying to turn it on.  (I have a handy test case.)  Currently, it logs a message and continues.




-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.