Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:01:34 -0300
To:     Igor Lubashev <ilubashe@akamai.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] perf: Use CAP_SYS_ADMIN with perf_event_paranoid
 checks
Message-ID: <20190812200134.GE9280@kernel.org>
References: <cover.1565188228.git.ilubashe@akamai.com>
 <ad56df5452eeafb99dda9fc3d30f0f487aace503.1565188228.git.ilubashe@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ad56df5452eeafb99dda9fc3d30f0f487aace503.1565188228.git.ilubashe@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:44:15AM -0400, Igor Lubashev escreveu:
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ struct evsel *perf_evsel__new_idx(struct perf_event_attr *attr, int idx)
  
>  static bool perf_event_can_profile_kernel(void)
>  {
> -	return geteuid() == 0 || perf_event_paranoid() == -1;
> +	return perf_event_paranoid_check(-1);
>  }

While looking at your changes I think the pre-existing code is wrong,
i.e. the check in sys_perf_event_open(), in the kernel is:

        if (!attr.exclude_kernel) {
                if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
                        return -EACCES;
        }

And:

static inline bool perf_paranoid_kernel(void)
{
        return sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > 1;
}

So we have to change that perf_event_paranoit_check(-1) to pass 1
instead?

bool perf_event_paranoid_check(int max_level)
{
        return perf_cap__capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
                        perf_event_paranoid() <= max_level;
}

Also you defined perf_cap__capable(anything) as:

#ifdef HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT

#include <sys/capability.h>

bool perf_cap__capable(cap_value_t cap);
        
#else   

static inline bool perf_cap__capable(int cap __maybe_unused)
{               
        return false;
}       
                
#endif /* HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT */


I think we should have:

#else

static inline bool perf_cap__capable(int cap __maybe_unused)
{
        return geteuid() == 0;
}

#endif /* HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT */

Right?

So I am removing the introduction of perf_cap__capable() from the first
patch you sent, leaving it with _only_ the feature detection part, using
that feature detection to do anything is then moved to a separate patch,
after we finish this discussion about what we should fallback to when
libcap-devel isn't available, i.e. we should use the previous checks,
etc.

- Arnaldo