[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9be223fb-5803-b676-902a-28e1c168cd8a@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:37:37 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Regarding perfmon_capable()
Hello,
In perf event subsystem and related platform drivers registering a PMU,
should perfmon_capable() be used directly ? OR just wondering if instead
perf_allow_[cpu|kernel|tracepoint]() helpers should be used which also
checks for 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' ? Should not both capabilities
and 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' decide whether kernel/cpu/tracepoint
events will be captured for unprivileged users.
arch/parisc/kernel/perf.c: if (!perfmon_capable())
arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c: if (!perfmon_capable())
arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c: if (!perfmon_capable())
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c: i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c: if (oa_freq_hz > i915_oa_max_sample_rate && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c: if (i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c: if (i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c: if (perfmon_capable())
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PID_IN_CONTEXTIDR) && perfmon_capable())
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: if (!perfmon_capable() &&
Although BPF might use perfmon_capabale() alone, because it was never
dependent on 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' ?
- Anshuman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists