From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjtA4-00011j-7f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:00:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vjt9x-0003MH-Hz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:00:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14498) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vjt9x-0003Lv-9l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:00:45 -0500 From: Paul Moore Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:00:24 -0500 Message-ID: <7966284.CJrPIyrYnI@sifl> In-Reply-To: <20131122154841.GA3232@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1382440906-3852-1-git-send-email-otubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3468561.4aYf2ZG3eq@sifl> <20131122154841.GA3232@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-1.7] seccomp: setting "-sandbox on" by default List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Paolo Bonzini , coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel , Anthony Liguori , Eduardo Otubo On Friday, November 22, 2013 04:48:41 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:44:42AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Friday, November 22, 2013 11:39:31 AM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:48:58AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve the > > > > development/debugging > > > > process, so if you have any ideas please let me know. > > > > > > The failure mode is terrible: > > Glad to see you don't feel strongly about things. > > Sorry for the rant :). I know you and Eduardo understand the issues and > have already been working on them. I can't speak for Eduardo, but no worries on my end; it just wouldn't be an Open Source project without a bit of hyperbole now and then would it? ;) > I hope hearing it from a developer who isn't following seccomp is useful > though. Definitely. I should have said it earlier, but I do appreciate you taking the time to comment. > It shows which issues stick out and hinder usability. Users will only be > happy with seccomp when it works silently behind the scenes. Exactly. Users don't tolerate bugs and I don't blame them. After all, at some point we are all users too. > Developers will only be happy with seccomp if it's easy and rewarding to > support/debug. Agreed. As a developer, how do you feel about the audit/syslog based approach I mentioned earlier? -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat