From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37778) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T21Kd-0001qJ-Te for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T21Kc-00060B-Jo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:55 -0400 Received: from e24smtp04.br.ibm.com ([32.104.18.25]:48853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T21Kc-0005hU-9D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:54 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp04.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:45:40 -0300 Received: from d24relay03.br.ibm.com (d24relay03.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.25]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999071DC0050 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (d24av05.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.44]) by d24relay03.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q7GEih4l23658552 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:44:43 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q7GEja4f024019 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:45:36 -0300 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:45:30 -0300 From: Eduardo Otubo Message-ID: <20120816144530.GA4860@bluepex.com> References: <1345070682-8675-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1345070682-8675-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Add -sandbox option to enable seccomp mode 2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Paul Moore , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:44:38PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Hi, > > I attempted to apply Eduardo's seccomp patches and ran into a number of > problems. In the interest of time, I thought it would be easier for me to fix > them and just respin the series myself. > > I've tested this as best I can--I don't have a seccomp capable kernel. But > since the option is available regardless of kernel support, I feel pretty > confident that this at least as correct as Eduardo's series. > I have tested on a x86_64 Fedora 17 with kernel 3.5.1-1 and everything seems to work well. I appreciate the fixes.