On 26.11.2018 23:28, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:57:21 +0300
> Alexey Budankov wrote:
>
+For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
+processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose
effective
+user ID is 0,
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:57:21 +0300
Alexey Budankov wrote:
> >> +For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
> >> +processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose
> >> effective
> >> +user ID is 0, referred to as superuser or root), and b) unprivi
Hello Jon,
On 25.11.2018 22:47, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:14:14 +0300
> Alexey Budankov wrote:
>
>> +For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
>> +processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose
>> effective
>> +user ID i
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:14:14 +0300
Alexey Budankov wrote:
> +For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
> +processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose effective
> +user ID is 0, referred to as superuser or root), and b) unprivileged
> proces
Implement initial version of perf-security.rst documentation file
initially covering security concerns related to perf_events/Perf
performance monitoring in multiuser environments.
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov
---
Changes in v2:
- replaced PCL referencing by per
Implement initial version of perf-security.rst documentation file
initially covering security concerns related to PE/Perf performance
monitoring in multiuser environments.
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov
---
Changes in v2:
- replaced old PCL referencing by PE (Perf
