> From: One Thousand Gnomes [mailto:gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:21 AM
>
> That strikes me as a very bad idea btw. If your opener was privileged and
> leaks
> the handle via exec or anything else to another process that process inherits
> the
> powers which mean
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:21 AM
> To: George Spelvin
>
> From a quick look, the stuff in the examples was already in the rapl driver.
>
The examples provided were to address why bit-level access granularity
was needed. They were not int
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Can we have some concrete examples for that please?
>
Our environment allows users to have exclusive access to some
number of compute nodes for a limited time. Bit-level control of
MSRs is required when a user might gain root or, more commonl
> * Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo.kernel@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> No, we really don't want to touch the old MSR code - it's a very opaque API
> with
> various deep limitations.
>
> What I'd like to see instead is to use a modern system monitoring interface -
> and
> in fact that already happened i
4 matches
Mail list logo
