linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: do not complain if root is owning perf.data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090828114951.GA25148@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:49:51 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@...ersec.com>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: do not complain if root is owning
	perf.data


* Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@...ersec.com> wrote:

> This improves patch fa6963b24 so that perf.data stuff that has 
> been dumped as root can be read (annotate/report) by a user 
> without the use of the --force.
> 
> Rationale is that root has plenty of ways to screw us (usually) 
> that do not require twisted schemes involving specially crafting a 
> perf.data.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@...ersec.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
> Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
> ---
>     On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:24:59PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>     > Ok, this makes sense - but i think we should do this in .32 only, 
>     > with a Cc: <stable@...nel.org> backport tag for .31.1.
> 
>     You're the boss ;)
> 
>     > Mind doing it against the latest perfcounters tree, which can be 
>     > found in -tip:
>     > 
>     >   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
>     > 
>     > your current version does not apply cleanly as the surrounding code 
>     > has changed a bit already.
> 
>     Here it is, against perfcounters/core which I assume is the 
>     proper tip branch. [...]

Yeah, applied - thanks!

>     [...] Note that I'd suggest adding a README.Devel under 
>     tools/perf to explicit how patches should be submitted, at 
>     least to explain against which tree it's best to do our 
>     patches for submission, it could help people avoiding losing 
>     your time with unnecessary back-and-forth mails just to rebase 
>     a patch ;)

Agreed! Mind sending a patch for that, or adding a wiki page for 
that on perf.wiki.kernel.org? We could then add a link to that to 
tools/perf/Documentation/README.Devel or so :-)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/