[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191011070543.GV2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:05:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
primiano@...gle.com, rsavitski@...gle.com, jeffv@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:31:14PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes, I did notice, I found it weird.
> >
> > If you have CAP_IPC_LIMIT you should be able to bust mlock memory
> > limits, so I don't see why we should further relate that to paranoid.
> >
> > The way I wrote it, we also allow to bust the limit if we have disabled
> > all paranoid checks. Which makes some sense I suppose.
> >
> > The original commit is this:
> >
> > 459ec28ab404 ("perf_counter: Allow mmap if paranoid checks are turned off")
>
> I am thinking we can just a new function perf_is_paranoid() that has nothing
> to do with the CAP_SYS_ADMIN check and doesn't have tracepoint wording:
>
> static inline int perf_is_paranoid(void)
> {
> return sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > -1;
> }
>
> And then call that from the mmap() code:
> if (locked > lock_limit && perf_is_paranoid() && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
> I don't think we need to add selinux security checks here since we are
> already adding security checks earlier in mmap(). This will make the code and
> its intention more clear and in line with the commit 459ec28ab404 you
> mentioned. Thoughts?
Mostly that I'm confused by the current code ;-)
Like I said, CAP_IPC_LIMIT on its own should already allow busting the
limit, I don't really see why we should make it conditional on paranoid.
But if you want to preserve behaviour (arguably a sane thing for your
patch) then yes, feel free to do as you propose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists