On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:31 +1000
Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:28:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Doesn't the setting of .period need to be maintained (it is in the other
powerpc perf_event implementation that this is derived from)?
Gah, yes it does.
* Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:31 +1000
Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:28:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Doesn't the setting of .period need to be maintained (it is in the other
powerpc perf_event
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:28:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Doesn't the setting of .period need to be maintained (it is in the other
powerpc perf_event implementation that this is derived from)?
Gah, yes it does.
I don't see how this
Linus,
Please do a pull from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulus/perf.git urgent
to get one commit that fixes a problem where, on some Freescale
embedded PowerPC machines, unprivileged userspace could oops the
kernel using the perf_event subsystem. I know it's late, but it
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:40:19 +1000
Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org wrote:
Please do a pull from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulus/perf.git urgent
to get one commit that fixes a problem where, on some Freescale
embedded PowerPC machines, unprivileged userspace could
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:28:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Doesn't the setting of .period need to be maintained (it is in the other
powerpc perf_event implementation that this is derived from)?
Gah, yes it does.
I don't see how this is a security fix -- the existing initializer above
