linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip for paranoid 3

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]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fXdqr1F9Mm_0-OMCcvAWxTAChqfM91QAOkE4Dg9foTp6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 08:16:53 -0700
From:   Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claire Jensen <cjense@...gle.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, ben@...adent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip for paranoid 3

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:55 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:59:54PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:40:07PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > Add skip tests for paranoid level being 3.
> > > > Rather than skipping lines starting "Failed", skip lines containing
> > > > "failed" - making the behavior consistent with the previous python
> > > > version.
> > >
> > > paranoid 3 is an out of tree patch.
> >
> > Thanks, what is the right way to resolve this? My desktop appears to
> > be carrying the patch and I'd like the tests to be as green as
> > possible.
>
> Then you desktop is probably running a Debian or derivative distro
> kernel. You can run your own kernel, or ask the Debian team to ditch
> their hack and use the LSM hooks to further limit perf usage if they
> feel this is required.
>
> The big advantage of the LSM hooks is that they can explicitly
> white-list the perf binary while dis-allowing random users access to the
> syscall. That way perf will still work but the possible exploit
> potential is much reduced.

Thanks, neither rewriting Debian's security to use LSM or running a
custom kernel are going to work in the environment I have. Presumably
it is going to be a matter of policy not to allow this test fix to
land, meaning Debian kernels are going to show failing tests? I can
carry the patch privately but that's a tech-debt, merge-conflict mess.

Thanks,
Ian