Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n

James Bruce
2006-07-13T07:48:15Z

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:07:32 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
>> Despite good resons to apply the patch, it has not been applied yet,
>> with no explanation.
>
> I queued the below. Andrea claims that it'll reduce seccomp overhead to
> literally zero.
>
> But looking at it, I think it's a bit confused. The patch needs
> s/DISABLE_TSC/ENABLE_TSC/ to make it right.
<-- snip -->

Andrea,
what happened to Andrew James Wade's rewording [1] of your config help?
It seemed to disappear from what was submitted to akpm.

To "mathematically prevent covert channels" is far too strong a claim to
make, since you only handle the case of TSC-related timing attacks.
AJW's wording is much better, so please don't drop it.

Of course, if the new wording will be included in some forthcoming patch
that also makes Linus happy [2], then never mind.

- Jim Bruce

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/10/440
[2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/12/328