[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810020832430.32062@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 08:40:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, tursulin@...ulin.net,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Per PMU access controls (paranoid setting)
Alexey,
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > perf_event_open() knows which PMU is associated with the event the caller
> > tries to open. So perf_event_open() can try to access/open the special per
> > PMU file on behalf of the caller. That should get the same security
> > treatment like a regular open() from user space. If that succeeds, access
> > is granted.
> >
> > The magic file could still be writeable for root to give general
> > restrictions aside of the file based ones similar to what you are
> > proposing.
>
> Let me wrap up all the requirements and ideas that have been captured so far.
>
> 1. A file [1] is added so that it can belong to a group of users allowed to use ${PMU},
> something like this:
>
> ls -alh /sys/bus/event_source/devices/${PMU}/caps/
> total 0
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 1 20:36 .
> drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 0 Oct 1 20:36 ..
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4.0K Oct 1 20:36 branches
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4.0K Oct 1 20:36 max_precise
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4.0K Oct 1 20:36 pmu_name
> -rw-r--r-- root ${PMU}_users paranoid <===
Right, though I personaly prefer something like 'access_control' as file
name, but that's bike shed painting realm.
> Modifications of file content are allowed to those who can
> modify /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid setting.
>
> 2. Semantics and content of the introduced paranoid file is
> similar to /proc/sys/kernel/perf_even_paranoid [2]:
>
> The perf_event_paranoid file can be set to restrict access
> to the performance counters.
>
> 2 allow only user-space measurements (default since Linux 4.6).
> 1 allow both kernel and user measurements (default before Linux 4.6).
> 0 allow access to CPU-specific data but not raw trace‐point samples.
> -1 no restrictions.
>
> The existence of the perf_event_paranoid file is the official method
> for determining if a kernel supports perf_event_open().
>
> 3. Every time an event for ${PMU} is created over perf_event_open():
> a) the calling thread's euid is checked to belong to ${PMU}_users group
> and if it does then the event's fd is allocated;
Not only the user group, it really should do the full security checks which
are done on open().
> b) then traditional checks against perf_event_pranoid content are applied;
Hmm, not sure about that because that might be conflicting.
> c) if the file doesn't exist the access is governed by global setting
> at /proc/sys/kernel/perf_even_paranoid;
Correct.
> 4. Documentation/admin-guide/perf-security.rst file is introduced that:
0) Better documentation of /proc/sys/kernel/perf_even_paranoid
> a) contains general explanation for fine grained access control;
> b) contains a section with guidance about scope and risk for each PMU
> which is enabled for fine grained access control;
> c) file is extended when more PMUs are enabled for fine grain control;
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists