| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: seccomp-bpf support |
| Date: | 2020-01-07 01:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20200107013743.f4ykl5tpvuvh6fwu@development |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2020-01-07 02:33:35 | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-07 00:51:08 | Re: Setting min/max TLS protocol in clientside libpq |