tags 474648 +patch
thanks
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, Sam Hocevar wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64
Version: 2.6.24-5
Severity: important
CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
been harmless.
Dear maintainers,
any news on this issue? I see that
block 477674 by 474648
thanks
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away.
Wow, thanks for listening to the users.
if it had users we already would have been notified.
By the way, our first research paper
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
been harmless. Quoting the author:
| On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit.
|
| The original seccomp patch for x86 also generated
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:41AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
that is a commercial entity, no need to push that.
unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away.
It seems that you're not really forced to use the commercial side. CPUShare
may be use freely if you
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
been harmless. Quoting the author:
| On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit.
|
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just
CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me
where the harm is).
it adds useless bloat.
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just
CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me
where the harm is).
it adds useless bloat.
the SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC is crazy, that is adding a
Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64
Version: 2.6.24-5
Severity: important
CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
been harmless. Quoting the author:
| On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit.
|
| The original seccomp patch for x86 also
8 matches
Mail list logo
