Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:36:06 -0400
From: Daniel Micay <>
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

> 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.

You're arguing with a straw man.

I was responding to a comment about out-of-tree code, not generic
architecture perf drivers vs. alternative versions by SoC vendors.

Qualcomm and other vendors landing their drivers in mainline would be
nice, but it wouldn't make it inherently higher quality. I don't really
see what it has to do with this, which I why I responded...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (852 bytes)

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.