Hi Dave, On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:04:20 -0800 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01/04/2014 07:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:20:14 -0800 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> There is *NOTHING* architecture-specific about SECCOMP except > >> that the syscalls have per-architecture definitions, like every > >> other syscall. It is absurd to have the option in the > >> arch-specific menus. > > > > You seem to have (mostly) lost the dependency some of the architecture > > versions of config SECCOMP had on PROC_FS ... > > I _believe_ the /proc interface has gone away. I can't find any > reference to /proc/<pid>/seccomp in any of the code. Is there some > /proc dependency that I'm missing outside of the removed > /proc/<pid>/seccomp interface? I don't know, but if it has gone then it is worth mentioning in the commit message ... and you did preserve the dependency in the sparc64 case. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpeWajOkPs1f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
