On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:38:56PM +0100, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09=33=16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:36:51AM +0100, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06=27=32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > >
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09=33=16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:36:51AM +0100, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06=27=32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > There is a reasonable easily identifiable set of syscalls that QEMU
On 15.02.2017 19:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The current impl of seccomp in QEMU is intentionally allowing a huge range
> of system calls to be executed. The goal was that running '-sandbox on'
> should never break any feature of QEMU, so naturally any syscall that can
> executed on any
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06=27=32PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The current impl of seccomp in QEMU is intentionally allowing a huge range
> of system calls to be executed. The goal was that running '-sandbox on'
> should never break any feature of QEMU, so naturally any syscall that can
>
