linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] Move uid filtering to BPF filters

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fXTLBb1+PghPCraJQcXY518Jtt3AwPLpoXvjXErW79U5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:27:38 -0800
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, 
	Howard Chu <howardchu95@...il.com>, Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>, 
	Levi Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>, Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@....com>, 
	Tengda Wu <wutengda@...weicloud.com>, Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] Move uid filtering to BPF filters

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:44 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 03:17:35PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:56 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:00:42PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:46 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > It's not completely broken and works sometimes.
> > > >
> > > > No this is the definition of completely broken. If it only works
> > > > sometimes then you can't use it, we can't put a test on it, there is
> > > > no point in it. Even when it doesn't fail on perf_event_open, does it
> > > > work for processes that start after /proc is scanned? No, it is
> > > > completely broken.
> > >
> > > Ok, we have a different definition for it.  Let's ignore the imaginary
> > > users of the broken features.  Have you added a test for this change?
> > >
> > > Anyway I've tested your change and found some issues:
> > >
> > > 1. It silently exited when BPF-skel is not built.  Better to put some
> > >    messages at least.
> > >
> > >   $ sudo ./perf record -u $(id -u) -- sleep 1
> > >
> > > 2. Even with BPF-skel, perf record doesn't work well.  It did something
> > >    but failed to get sample data for some reason.
> > >
> > >   $ sudo ./perf record -u $(id -u) -- sleep 1
> > >   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > >   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.045 MB perf.data ]
> > >
> > >    Oh, I think you now need to pass -a because it now works in
> > >    system-wide mode and drops samples for other users.
> >
> > This is a pre-existing problem, no?
>
> No, it worked without -a in the past.  Please see my previous reply.
> I think -u/--uid is one of the supported target in the perf tool (not
> for the system call) and it used to disable system-wide mode if -u is
> used at the same time.

As I keep repeating the '-u' option has never worked in the past, it
either early exited or missed recording new processes.

The documentation for `perf record` is:
```
...
       -a, --all-cpus
          System-wide collection from all CPUs (default if no target
is specified).
...
       -u, --uid=
          Record events in threads owned by uid. Name or number.
...
```
So `-a` is implied without a target/workload but you are specifying a
workload and `-u`. So do you want samples from the workload or from
the user's processes? I can tell from your command line being sleep
that you want it to imply `-a` but would that be true if it were a
benchmark? For the benchmark case you probably don't want `-a`
implied. If you specify `-p` and `-u` should the processes that don't
match -u be sampled or are you expecting implicit system wide
profiling now?

I agree the behavior in the patch series doesn't match the existing
behavior, but I'm not sure the existing behavior agrees with the
documentation nor working as expected. Having the `-u` not select
system wide, as in the patch, seems to agree with the documentation
better. You have specified a target workload/process/eventual pid and
you want samples owned by the uid, why should you now start getting
samples from other processes? With `-p` you wouldn't expect `-a` to
suddenly get implied, I'm not sure it makes any more sense with any
target/workload.

> > > 3. With BPF-skel, non-root users will see this.
> > >
> > >   $ ./perf record -u $(id -u) -- sleep 1
> > >   cannot get fd for 'filters' map
> > >   failed to set filter "BPF" on event cycles:P with 13 (Permission denied)
> > >
> > >    I think it's confusing and better to tell user that you need to run
> > >    'perf record --setup-filter pin' as root first.  But maybe due to the
> > >    issue #2, you still need to run it as root.

I think that is an okay addition to BPF filters in general. I'm wary
of having patch series feature crept into requiring the entire tool
being reimplemented.

Thanks,
Ian