lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:02:23 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: eranian@...il.com, Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3 Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote: > > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library. > > By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem > (and I fully understand that). > > Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon, > that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality. > > And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating > that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not > make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to > the very thing Linux is about. > > What is worse, you defend that: > > > Go ask end-users what they think of that? > > > > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool. > > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool. > > No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one > of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable. > > Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary > only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly > forking over more $$$ for an upgrade? > > You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel, > as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device > - independent of whether you are aware of that or not. I'm sorry, but that is a pretty silly argument. By that logic, the kernel module loader should include an in-kernel copy of gcc and binutils, and the fact that it doesn't proves that the module loader is little more than a GPL circumvention device - independent of whether you are aware of that or not. 8-) Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists