Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:09:44 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	Jeff Vander Stoep <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
	Alexander Shishkin <>,
	"" <>,
	LKML <>,
	Jonathan Corbet <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further
 restriction of perf_event_open

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:32:32PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 17:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I wasn't talking specifically about perf.

Then this is irrelevant to a discussion about limiting access to the
perf interface.

Hardening drivers in general is a very interesting topic, but it is a
different topic.

> > But please, let's frame the argument to match reality.
> The argument is framed in reality. Stating that it now often takes a
> few hours to find a vulnerability with the unaltered, widely known
> public perf fuzzer is not impressive. It's really an argument for
> claiming that it's a significant security issue.

My claim was not that the mainline code was impressively perfect, but
rather that the vendor code was worse, countering a prior claim
otherwise. Hence, reality.

There is cetainly much that can be done to improve things, if we discuss
that which is actually applicable.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.