Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Make seccomp protections in systemd-nspawn optional

2015-02-04 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 04.02.15 02:21, Jay Faulkner (j...@jvf.cc) wrote: I am not particularly fond of the idea of adding a completely new command line option for this though. Maybe we can find another way for this. For example, one option could be to split the seccomp syscall blacklist in two:

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Make seccomp protections in systemd-nspawn optional

2015-02-03 Thread Jay Faulkner
On Feb 3, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net wrote: On Tue, 03.02.15 23:22, Jay Faulkner (j...@jvf.cc) wrote: Hi all, As I posted last week, a change merged a while ago to systemd-nspawn adding seccomp protections with no ability to enable/disable broke the

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Make seccomp protections in systemd-nspawn optional

2015-02-03 Thread Jay Faulkner
Hi all, As I posted last week, a change merged a while ago to systemd-nspawn adding seccomp protections with no ability to enable/disable broke the Ironic Python Agent ramdisk which utilizes CoreOS and systemd. The attached patch makes the behavior optional, with it defaulting to disabled. I

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Make seccomp protections in systemd-nspawn optional

2015-02-03 Thread Brandon Philips
For context this puts a toggle on this feature added to nspawn: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=28650077f36466d9c5ee27ef2006fae3171a2430 I encouraged Jay to make it an opt-in flag so as to not break other people who had working setups when using nspawn as a minimal ns

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Make seccomp protections in systemd-nspawn optional

2015-02-03 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Tue, 03.02.15 23:22, Jay Faulkner (j...@jvf.cc) wrote: Hi all, As I posted last week, a change merged a while ago to systemd-nspawn adding seccomp protections with no ability to enable/disable broke the Ironic Python Agent ramdisk which utilizes CoreOS and systemd. The attached patch