Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/3882 Control: severity -1 serious
On 3 August 2016 at 02:15, Michael Biebl <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 01.08.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Felipe Sateler: >> So I think the kernel should enable SECCOMP. > > I agree, unless SECCOMP on arm has some unwanted side-effects. > Felipe, can you file a bug report against the linux package accordingly? Already reported https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833183 > >> However, I think systemd should also simply (warn and) ignore seccomp >> calls if seccomp is not available in the current kernel. > > I agree as well, Systemd should log an error and continue. > We need to file a bug report upstream for that? Any takers? I have forwarded this report and marked this bug as such. > Assuming upstream actually decides to make SECCOMP (once enabled) a hard > dependency, we need to find a different solution, like a check in the > maintainer scripts. That said, we should first try to get that adressed > upstream. Yes, I'd like upstream's opinion on this first. However, I think this bug should be bumped to RC to prevent migration to testing, as this makes arm systems basically unusable. I have marked the bug as serios. Feel free to downgrade if you disagree. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
