[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c86c4470804160151w75aaa1doaf98a46543ba03f9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:51:57 +0200
From: "stephane eranian" <eranian@...glemail.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Markus Metzger" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
andi-suse@...stfloor.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
markus.t.metzger@...il.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
roland@...hat.com, mtk.manpages@...il.com, juan.villacis@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] x86, ptrace: PEBS support
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > Should we skip the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK check if capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)?
>
> FWIW I don't think we should. They are not really related.
>
That is true even though I see in mlock() that both are actually used.
I don't check against capabilities in perfmon, but I check RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
for the sampling buffer.
I see the capset()/capget() syscalls, however, I am still not clear as to how a
sysadmin could set up the capabilities for users via PAM or other
security interface.
>
> > It's a fairly large patch.
>
> The original version was much smaller -- a lot of the increase came out of
> review feedback for "more infrastructure" etc. I don't think you can blame
> Markus for that.
>
I believe the patch could potentially be broken into multiple pieces:
ds/bts, pebs, ptrace.
--
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