Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open

[Daniel Micay]

> My claim was not that the mainline code was impressively perfect, but
> rather that the vendor code was worse, countering a prior claim
> otherwise. Hence, reality.

You're arguing with a straw man.

I was responding to a comment about out-of-tree code, not generic
architecture perf drivers vs. alternative versions by SoC vendors.

Qualcomm and other vendors landing their drivers in mainline would be
nice, but it wouldn't make it inherently higher quality. I don't really
see what it has to do with this, which I why I responded...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part