linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] perf trace: substitute CAP_SYS_ADMIN with CAP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 15:10:30 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "selinux@...r.kernel.org" <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] perf trace: substitute CAP_SYS_ADMIN with
 CAP_PERFMON in error message

Em Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:49:32PM +0300, Alexey Budankov escreveu:
> 
> On 23.04.2020 16:20, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:44:02PM +0300, Alexey Budankov escreveu:
> >>
> >> Update error message to mention CAP_PERFMON only. CAP_SYS_ADMIN still
> >> works in keeping with user space backward compatibility approach.
> > 
> > This will confuse users that build the latest perf to use in older
> > systems where CAP_PERFMON isn't available, probably we need to, in these
> > cases, check for the existence of CAP_PERFMON to provide a better
> > warning message, something like:
> > 
> >   You need CAP_ADMIN or update your kernel and libcap to one that supports
> >   CAP_PERFMON.
> > 
> > For systems without CAP_PERFMON, while mentioning only CAP_PERFMON for
> > systems where it is present, right?
> 
> Right, but this ideal implementation requires more effort, so staying with
> two caps in the message and letting users decide which one to use looks like
> a good balance already. 

Agreed.

- Arnaldo