linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86: Check data address for IBS software filter

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: <04f0a3b5-6665-40f7-a19f-f3ed36aece52@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:49:13 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>,
 Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86: Check data address for IBS software filter

Hi Namhyung, Ingo,

>>> We have two options:
>>> 1) Restrict IBS + PERF_SAMPLE_RAW to privilege users.
>>> 2) Remove all sensitive information from raw register dump before
>>>    passing it to userspace. (Kernel data addresses and all physical
>>>    addresses are the only sensitive info I suppose?).
>>>
>>> 2 is better IMO since it will allow unprivileged user to use IBS
>>> with full potential. wdyt?
>>
>> I'm slightly inclined to #1 for simplicity and safety, but #2 is fine 
>> to me as well.
> 
> I'd prefer #2 for superior usability, if it doesn't get too 
> complicated.

Thank you for your opinion.

I've posted a v3 based on 2nd option:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250321161251.1033-1-ravi.bangoria@amd.com 

@Ingo, can you please revert v2 and apply v3? (provided @Namhyung is okay
with it).

Thanks,
Ravi