Re: RFC: seccomp-bpf support

On 1/6/20 8:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This patch is currently in "needs review" state, but the last message is
> from August 29, and my understanding is that there have been a couple of
> objections / disagreements about the architecture, difficulties with
> producing the set of syscalls, and not providing any built-in policy.
> 
> I don't think we're any closer to resolve those disagreements since
> August, so I think we should make some decision about this patch,
> instead of just moving it from one CF to the next one. The "needs
> review" status seems not reflecting the situation.
> 
> Are there any plans to post a new version of the patch with a different
> design, or something like that? If not, I propose we mark it either as
> rejected or returned with feedback (and maybe get a new patch in the
> future).


I assumed it was rejected.

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=eE/6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----