[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191205181155.GB723068@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:11:55 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
elena.reshetova@...el.com,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Introduce CAP_SYS_PERFMON capability for secure
Perf users groups
> The question isn't whether the tool could use the capability, it's whether
> the tool would also need CAP_SYS_ADMIN to be useful. Are there existing
> tools that could stop using CAP_SYS_ADMIN in favor of CAP_SYS_PERFMON?
> My bet is that any tool that does performance monitoring is going to need
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN for other reasons.
At least perf stat won't.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists