| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(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 11:02:14 |
| Message-ID: | 72c0afcd-d377-679c-503d-5c7902e05b93@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2020-01-07 11:21:30 | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2020-01-07 11:00:30 | Re: Errors when update a view with conditional-INSTEAD rules |