Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 01:44:49 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@cpushare.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory
Message-ID: <20050301004449.GV8880@opteron.random>
References: <20050223014233.6710fd73.akpm@osdl.org> <20050224215136.GK8651@stusta.de> <20050224224134.GE20715@opteron.random> <20050225211453.GC3311@stusta.de> <20050226013137.GO20715@opteron.random> <20050301003247.GY4021@stusta.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050301003247.GY4021@stusta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 844
Lines: 15

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:32:47AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If you want to use Cpushare, you know that you have to enable seccomp.

Oh yeah, I know it, you know it, but not everyone will know it while
configuring the kernel, infact I doubt they'll even know what Cpushare
is about while they configure the kernel ;). And I doubt they should be
required to know all those details in order to make that choice, and my
point is that seccomp is low overhead enough that everyone can enable it
if they're unsure, just in case. I'm just trying to explain why I
recommend it to Y by default "if unsure".
-
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/