linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] perf arm64: Send pointer auth masks to ring buffer

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: <133c2f4b-1ca5-2d0c-f4f4-e01ff5e028c8@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:48:56 +0000
From:   James Clark <james.clark@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        broonie@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org,
        Andrew Kilroy <andrew.kilroy@....com>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        kristina.martsenko@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] perf arm64: Send pointer auth masks to ring buffer



On 27/10/2022 18:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:28:12PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
>>> Why do we want the same mask repeated over and over with each sample;
>>> should this not be part of the address space (side-band) data?
>>
>> You are probably right that it could be done that way. The reason that
>> we did it this way was to be consistent with ptrace feature [1] where it
>> is delivered to userspace on a per-process basis. And there is also a
>> prctl for the enabled key types [2] which can be changed dynamically.
>> Particularly for the last reason is why it was done per sample.
>>
>> Having said that, the enabled keys field is not used by perf, only the
>> mask is used, so I can drop the per sample data until enabled keys is
>> needed, which may be never.
>>
>> I'm going to assume that perf shouldn't use ptrace because of
>> permissions and conflicts with debuggers, so I could put the mask
>> somewhere like PERF_RECORD_FORK instead of per sample.
> 
> Yeah, or create an new RECORD type which you can also send around at
> prctl() time.
> 
> The only thing that's needed on top of that is exposing the mask
> somewhere in /proc for existing tasks; which is what perf also uses to
> syntesize RECORD_MMAP events on startup etc..
> 

Hmm ok, in that case I can just add the /proc interface for now because
the mask won't change and we can add the new record type at the point
it's needed in the future.

Thanks for the feedback.