Kernel modules don't have to be open source provided they follow certain rules like not using gpl only symbols. This is the same reason you can use an NVIDIA driver.
Its not enforced so much by law as what the fsf and Linux foundation can prove and are willing to pursue; going after a company that size is expensive, especially when they're a Linux foundation partner. A lot of major Linux foundation partners are actively breaking the GPL.
Both Intel and AMD invest a lot into open source drivers, firmware and userspace applications, but also due to the nature of X86_64's UEFI, a lot of the proprietary crap is loaded in ROM on the motherboard, and as microcode.
I work with SoC suppliers, including Qualcomm and can confirm; you need to sign an NDA to get a highly patched old orphaned kernel, often with drivers that are provided only as precompiled binaries, preventing you updating the kernel yourself.
If you want that source code, you need to also pay a lot of money yearly to be a Qualcomm partner and even then you still might not have access to the sources for all the binaries you use. Even when you do get the sources, don't expect them to be updated for new kernel compatibility; you've gotta do that yourself.
Many other manufacturers do this as well, but few are as bad. The environment is getting better, but it seems to be a feature that many large manufacturers feel they can live without.
If you're messing with ACLs I'm not sure deduplication will help you much; I believe (not much experience with reflinks) the dedup checksum will include the metadata, so changing ACLs might ruin any benefit. Even if you don't change the ACLs, as soon as somebody updates a game, it's checksum will change and won't converge back when everyone else updates.
Even hardlinks preserve the ACL... Maybe symlinks to the folder containing the game's data, then the symlinks could have different ACLs?
I actually found the opposite with my steam library; on ZFS with ZSTD I only saw a ratio of 1.1 for steamapps, not that there's really any meaningful performance penalty for compressing it.
So this is a system-wide DNS hijack for the purpose of filtering and monitoring?
So say an attacker can enable this service, would they then be able to redirect any DNS query regardless of if DNS over TLS + DNSSEC are configured? Surely I'm reading this wrong
Based on your fans it's more likely too much air + high initial temperature causing uneven cooling. I assume with those fans you're trying to print really fast?
Given the user always has a deeper access to the client (i.e. hardware access) than the anticheat dev does, eliminating cheating is probably unsolvable.
Best bet is probably always going to be a decently funded team dedicated to find and ban cheaters, rather than attempting to prevent them all with a rootkit.
About a year ago I moved to Hyprland & Wayfire for my NVIDIA & Intel boxes. Moved NVIDIA to Radeon a few months back and had mixed results.
Recently tried Plasma 6 for experimental HDR and am impressed.
Yeah in the short term there are going to be a lot of lose/lose scenarios for them, but this is the stupid prize for playing stupid games with what they released.
I hope they stock it out, games like No Man's Sky show both that a developer who cares enough to try can earn back the trust of a player base, and that the process to do so requires a lot of work.
No, I'm saying that when people run into strange bugs, sometimes they put together an issue (like the person behind cve-rs), and sometimes they quietly work around it because they're busy.
Seeing as I don't often trawl through issues on the language git, neither really involve notifying me specifically.
My lack of an anecdote does not equate to anecdotal evidence of no issue, just that I haven't met every rust developer.
Yes, the problems rust is solving are already solved under different constraints. This is not a spicy take.
The world isn't clamoring to turn a go app into rust specifically for the memory safety they both enjoy.
Systems applications are still almost exclusively written in C & C++, and they absolutely do run into memory bugs. All the time. I work with C almost exclusively for my day job (with shell and rust interspersed), and while tried and tested C programs have far fewer memory bugs than when they were first made, that means the bugs you do find are by their nature more painful to diagnose. Eliminating a whole class of problems in-language is absolutely worth the hype.
The code used in cve-rs is not that complicated, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody would use lifetimes like this if they had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
I'm as much a rust evangelist as the next guy, but part of having excellent guard rails is loudly pointing out subtle breakages that can cause hard to diagnose issues.
Strangely, I've never had a crime issue in CS2, even with 140k+ pop and barely any cop shops.
I recently bought a 7800 XT for the same reason, NVIDIA drivers giving me trouble in games and generally making it harder to maintain my system. Unfortunately I ran headfirst into the 6.6 reset bug that made general usage an absolute nightmare.
Open source drivers are still miles ahead of NVIDIA's binary blob if only because I could shift to 6.7 when it released to fix it, but I guess GPU drivers are always going to be GPU drivers.
But it's not a binary "we're fucked" or "we're fine", it's an ever worsening gradient of terrible conditions. Even within that, how many people get the brunt of it depends on the extent of the damage.
I am curious about why performance cores would go with a no-smt implementation; the die area improvements are obvious, but how are they going to spend that die area improvement to make up the performance gap?
AVX only really affects a small subset of applications, so I can't see that going too far.
A better branch predictor could be a boon, but given how good they are already I'm not sure how they could make up the 50% multi threaded loss.
Perhaps just cramming more physical cores together and a better cache sharing mechanism?