linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Per PMU access controls (paranoid setting)

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:27:07 +0300
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, tursulin@...ulin.net,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Per PMU access controls (paranoid setting)

Hello Jann and Kees,

On 29.09.2018 1:02, Jann Horn wrote:
<SNIP>
> Ah, I guess the answer is "0", since you want to see data about what
> other users are doing.
> 
> Does the i915 PMU expose sampling events, counting events, or both?
> The thing about sampling events is that they AFAIK always let the user
> pick arbitrary data to collect - like register contents, or userspace
> stack memory -, and independent of the performance counter being
> monitored, this kind of access should not be permitted to other
> contexts. (But it might be that I misunderstand how perf works - I'm
> not super familiar with its API.)
> 

Currently *core* paranoid >= 1 (per-process mode) prevents simultaneous 
sampling on CPU events (perf record) and reading of uncore HW counters 
(perf stat -I), because uncore counters count system wide and that is 
allowed only when *core* paranoid <= 0.

Uncore counts collected simultaneously with CPU event samples can be 
correlated using timestamps taken from some common system clock e.g. 
CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW.

Could it be secure enough to still allow reading of system wide uncore 
HW counters when sampling of CPU events is limited to specific processes 
by *core* paranoid >= 1?

Thanks,
Alexey