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: <20190812201557.GF9280@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:15:57 -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 Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:01:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> 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.

So, please take a look at the tmp.perf/cap branch in my git repo:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/log/?h=tmp.perf/cap

I split the patch and made perf_cap__capable() fallback to 'return
geteuid() == 0;' when libcap-devel isn't available, i.e. keep the
checks made prior to your patchset.

Jiri, can I keep your Acked-by?

- Arnaldo