Building with seccomp

[Matthew Selsky]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:02:15PM -0700, Hal Murray wrote:
> 
> 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.

Just to close out this thread for those that don't watch the GitLab site..

I consolidated on a single symbol in config.h and I made waf have a fatal error if you requested seccomp, but either headers or libraries aren't found.

See https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/commit/d22805a504e2a4066a3b22f5a100319c1f72601d


Thanks, 
-Matt