* Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:31 +1000
> 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 fr
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:31 +1000
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.
Well, lo
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 se
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
> sh
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:40:19 +1000
Paul Mackerras 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 oops the
> ke
