From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kconfig: consolidate arch-specific seccomp options Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:41:31 -0800 Message-ID: <52C8AA3B.5010302@sr71.net> References: <20140102202014.CA206E9B@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20140105023853.dda6c1f9c6f9875159634e69@canb.auug.org.au> <52C85B34.6040001@sr71.net> <20140105103353.9bf06782c851f8eaec0e0f33@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from www.sr71.net ([198.145.64.142]:36231 "EHLO blackbird.sr71.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754579AbaAEAlj (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:41:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140105103353.9bf06782c851f8eaec0e0f33@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 01/04/2014 03:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> I _believe_ the /proc interface has gone away. I can't find any >> reference to /proc//seccomp in any of the code. Is there some >> /proc dependency that I'm missing outside of the removed >> /proc//seccomp interface? > > I don't know, but if it has gone then it is worth mentioning in the > commit message Maybe like this? ;) > There are 7 architecures with "config SECCOMP". They all have > virtually the same help text except for those referencing the > /proc interface which was removed in 2007. I guess I could call it out a _bit_ more clearly that I removed the dependency because the code is gone. > ... and you did preserve the dependency in the sparc64 case. Ahh, I did. I'll remove it. Thanks!