Seccomp tangle

[Eric S. Raymond]

Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net>:
> 
> esr at thyrsus.com said:
> > Aaarrgghhh.  It;s a huge pain in the ass and I wish it weren't interesting.
> > But given our mission statememnnt, it has to be. 
> 
> Just to make sure we are on the same wavelength...
> 
> My question/proposal was not to drop seccomp if we didn't do what I sketched 
> out.  It was to allow a slightly tighter/cleaner list of syscalls if you were 
> willing to put in the work to collect the data.  The old merger of all 
> syscalls ever seen on any system approach would still be the default if you 
> enabled seccomp and didn't specify your own list.

Understood.

Now I'm torn between devel/ and contrib/. Use your judgment.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>