From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] perf/core: open access for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged process
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 23:50:37 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <687dc836-4d86-c281-75b3-c4df451e7cd1@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKSb8ZEq7mG0XwGx_btLxoEU5XDTu_p6eseDGuO-G+5tw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Alexei,
On 15.01.2020 4:52, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:50 AM Alexey Budankov
> <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14.01.2020 21:06, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:47 AM Alexey Budankov
>>> <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we talked at RFC series of CAP_SYS_TRACING last year, I just expected
>>>>>> to open it for enabling/disabling kprobes, not for creation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can accept user who has no admin priviledge but the CAP_SYS_PERFMON,
>>>>>> to shoot their foot by their own risk, I'm OK to allow it. (Even though,
>>>>>> it should check the max number of probes to be created by something like
>>>>>> ulimit)
>>>>>> I think nowadays we have fixed all such kernel crash problems on x86,
>>>>>> but not sure for other archs, especially on the devices I can not reach.
>>>>>> I need more help to stabilize it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how enable/disable is any safer than creation.
>>>>> If there are kernel bugs in kprobes the kernel will crash anyway.
>>>>> I think such partial CAP_SYS_PERFMON would be very confusing to the users.
>>>>> CAP_* is about delegation of root privileges to non-root.
>>>>> Delegating some of it is ok, but disallowing creation makes it useless
>>>>> for bpf tracing, so we would need to add another CAP later.
>>>>> Hence I suggest to do it right away instead of breaking
>>>>> sys_perf_even_open() access into two CAPs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexei, Masami,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your meaningful input.
>>>> If we know in advance that it still can crash the system in some cases and on
>>>> some archs, even though root fully controls delegation thru CAP_SYS_PERFMON,
>>>> such delegation looks premature until the crashes are avoided. So it looks like
>>>> access to eBPF for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged processes is the subject for
>>>> a separate patch set.
>>>
>>> perf_event_open is always dangerous. sw cannot guarantee non-bugginess of hw.
>>
>> Sure, software cannot guarantee, but known software bugs could still be fixed,
>> that's what I meant.
>>
>>> imo adding a cap just for pmc is pointless.
>>> if you add a new cap it should cover all of sys_perf_event_open syscall.
>>> subdividing it into sw vs hw counters, kprobe create vs enable, etc will
>>> be the source of ongoing confusion. nack to such cap.
>>>
>>
>> Well, as this patch set already covers complete perf_event_open functionality,
>> and also eBPF related parts too, could you please review and comment on it?
>> Does the patches 2/9 and 5/9 already bring all required extentions?
>
> yes. the current patches 2 and 5 look good to me.
Could this have you explicit Reviewed-by or Acked-by tag so
the changes could be driven into the kernel?
Latest v7 is here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c8de937a-0b3a-7147-f5ef-69f467e87a13@linux.intel.com/
Thanks,
Alexey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-01 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-18 9:16 [PATCH v4 0/7] Introduce CAP_SYS_PERFMON to secure system performance monitoring and observability Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:24 ` [PATCH v4 1/9] capabilities: introduce CAP_SYS_PERFMON to kernel and user space Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 19:56 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-18 9:25 ` [PATCH v4 2/9] perf/core: open access for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged process Alexey Budankov
2020-01-08 16:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-09 11:36 ` Alexey Budankov
[not found] ` <20200110140234.GO2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[not found] ` <20200111005213.6dfd98fb36ace098004bde0e@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20200110164531.GA2598@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20200111084735.0ff01c758bfbfd0ae2e1f24e@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <2B79131A-3F76-47F5-AAB4-08BCA820473F@fb.com>
[not found] ` <5e191833.1c69fb81.8bc25.a88c@mx.google.com>
2020-01-11 9:57 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-01-13 20:39 ` Song Liu
2020-01-14 3:25 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-01-14 5:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-01-14 9:47 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-01-14 18:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-01-14 18:50 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-01-15 1:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-01-15 5:15 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-04-01 20:50 ` Alexey Budankov [this message]
2020-04-03 13:55 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-04-03 13:56 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-01-15 9:45 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-01-15 12:11 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-01-14 12:04 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-04-01 20:49 ` Alexey Budankov
2020-04-03 14:28 ` Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:26 ` [PATCH v4 3/9] perf tool: extend Perf tool with CAP_SYS_PERFMON capability support Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:27 ` [PATCH v4 4/9] drm/i915/perf: open access for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged process Alexey Budankov
2019-12-19 9:10 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2019-12-18 9:28 ` [PATCH v4 5/9] trace/bpf_trace: " Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:28 ` [PATCH v4 6/9] powerpc/perf: " Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:29 ` [PATCH v4 7/9] parisc/perf: " Alexey Budankov
2020-01-27 8:52 ` Helge Deller
2019-12-18 9:30 ` [PATCH v4 8/9] drivers/perf: " Alexey Budankov
[not found] ` <20200117105153.GB6144@willie-the-truck>
2020-01-18 18:48 ` Alexey Budankov
2019-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH v4 9/9] drivers/oprofile: " Alexey Budankov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=687dc836-4d86-c281-75b3-c4df451e7cd1@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=arnaldo.melo@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).