[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2NKxCUncbi7DSyVn0ufBEy0P29gwH=+TnWhNMT2DJgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 18:15:02 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, tursulin@...ulin.net,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Per PMU access controls (paranoid setting)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:12 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> From a design POV, Jann's idea to have a per PMU special file which you
> need to open for getting access is way better than the extra knobs. It
> allows to use all existing security mechanisms to be used.
(That was Mark's idea, not mine, I just agree with his idea a lot.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists