From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:05:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100121013822.28781960.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100122005147.GD22003@redhat.com> <20100121170541.7425ff10.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100122182827.GA13185@redhat.com> <20100122200129.GG22003@redhat.com> <20100122221348.GA4263@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f186.google.com ([209.85.223.186]:56472 "EHLO mail-iw0-f186.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460Ab0AWIFJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:05:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Peter Zijlstra , Peter Zijlstra , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , LKML , Steven Rostedt , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , utrace-devel@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This is why when somebody brought up "you could do a seccomp-like thing on > top of utrace" that my reaction was and is just totally negative. It shows > all the wrong kinds of tying things together. seccomp-via-utrace should be just removed to be honest before its users. It entered the tree because it was very small and simple. If rewritten, it no longer is small and simple because of whole kernel/utrace.c.