linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:18:46 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

Hi.

On 06/11/2009 11:26 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17:16PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>> I personally would expect a perf.git on kernel.org for the userspace
>> tools for it. Like we have udev.git there, iproute2.git and others.
>>
>> Seems to be working perfectly fine (except of course oprofile) and makes
>> packaging and security updates a lot easier.
> There is nothing preventing us from adding support for rpm and source rpms.
> So you just grab the relevant tre and issue a few cammnds and you have your
> packages.

Bah, having 40M .src.rpm for a 5k binary package?

Maybe I'm missing something, how exactly do you conceive the packaging?
Or do you expect packagers to download a kernel package, untar it, get
tools/ dir, tar it and package? I hope not :).

And how would we cope with a different release cycle of the userspace
tool? If one rewrites a part totally independent on the kernel, do they
need to wait for the next kernel release? Or just merge it at any time
and packagers pick it up?

> And for security fixes we have the stable kernels.

So packagers will stick with the latest stable, right? With backporting
of (only stable) new fancy features from current git until next kernel
release.

--
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/