[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47c60dc1-47ed-ca31-cc3d-d26a1b00d19a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:44:04 +0300
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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)
Hello,
On 02.10.2018 9:40, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Not only the user group, it really should do the full security checks which
> are done on open().
I expect it is already implemented by some internal kernel API so that
it could be reused.
>
>> b) then traditional checks against perf_event_pranoid content are applied;
>
> Hmm, not sure about that because that might be conflicting.
Well, possible contradictions could be converged to some reasonable point
during technical review stage.
Current perf_event_paranoid semantics is still required for PMUs
that are governed by global setting at /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid.
<SNIP>
>> 4. Documentation/admin-guide/perf-security.rst file is introduced that:
>
> 0) Better documentation of /proc/sys/kernel/perf_even_paranoid
Exactly. perf_event_open man7 [1] requires update as well, however
this is not a part of kernel source tree so these docs changes are
to be mailed TO: mtk.manpages@...il.com and CC: linux-api@...r.kernel.org.
Thanks,
Alexey
[1] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/perf_event_open.2.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists