linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] perf: Use CAP_SYS_ADMIN with perf_event

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: <20190812200134.GE9280@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:01:34 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To:     Igor Lubashev <ilubashe@...mai.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] perf: Use CAP_SYS_ADMIN with perf_event_paranoid
 checks

Em Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:44:15AM -0400, Igor Lubashev escreveu:
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ struct evsel *perf_evsel__new_idx(struct perf_event_attr *attr, int idx)
  
>  static bool perf_event_can_profile_kernel(void)
>  {
> -	return geteuid() == 0 || perf_event_paranoid() == -1;
> +	return perf_event_paranoid_check(-1);
>  }

While looking at your changes I think the pre-existing code is wrong,
i.e. the check in sys_perf_event_open(), in the kernel is:

        if (!attr.exclude_kernel) {
                if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
                        return -EACCES;
        }

And:

static inline bool perf_paranoid_kernel(void)
{
        return sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > 1;
}

So we have to change that perf_event_paranoit_check(-1) to pass 1
instead?

bool perf_event_paranoid_check(int max_level)
{
        return perf_cap__capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
                        perf_event_paranoid() <= max_level;
}

Also you defined perf_cap__capable(anything) as:

#ifdef HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT

#include <sys/capability.h>

bool perf_cap__capable(cap_value_t cap);
        
#else   

static inline bool perf_cap__capable(int cap __maybe_unused)
{               
        return false;
}       
                
#endif /* HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT */


I think we should have:

#else

static inline bool perf_cap__capable(int cap __maybe_unused)
{
        return geteuid() == 0;
}

#endif /* HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT */

Right?

So I am removing the introduction of perf_cap__capable() from the first
patch you sent, leaving it with _only_ the feature detection part, using
that feature detection to do anything is then moved to a separate patch,
after we finish this discussion about what we should fallback to when
libcap-devel isn't available, i.e. we should use the previous checks,
etc.

- Arnaldo