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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] perf/core: open access for CAP_SYS_PERFMON
 privileged process
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "jani.nikula@linux.intel.com" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        "joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        "rodrigo.vivi@intel.com" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" 
        <james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Igor Lubashev <ilubashe@akamai.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
References: <c0460c78-b1a6-b5f7-7119-d97e5998f308@linux.intel.com>
 <c93309dc-b920-f5fa-f997-e8b2faf47b88@linux.intel.com>
 <20200108160713.GI2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <cc239899-5c52-2fd0-286d-4bff18877937@linux.intel.com>
 <20200110140234.GO2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200111005213.6dfd98fb36ace098004bde0e@kernel.org>
 <20200110164531.GA2598@kernel.org>
 <20200111084735.0ff01c758bfbfd0ae2e1f24e@kernel.org>
 <2B79131A-3F76-47F5-AAB4-08BCA820473F@fb.com>
 <5e191833.1c69fb81.8bc25.a88c@mx.google.com>
 <158a4033-f8d6-8af7-77b0-20e62ec913b0@linux.intel.com>
 <20200114122506.3cf442dc189a649d4736f86e@kernel.org>
 <CAADnVQLCtrvvagbbkZG4PyAKb2PWzUouxG3=nxvm8QdpgEWtGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <81abaa29-d1be-a888-8b2f-fdf9b7e9fde8@linux.intel.com>
 <CAADnVQKddDCRV9Zp7N_TR51wc5rtRwFN-pSZHLiXDXe23+B_5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <257a949a-b7cc-5ff1-6f1a-34bc44b1efc5@linux.intel.com>
 <CAADnVQKSb8ZEq7mG0XwGx_btLxoEU5XDTu_p6eseDGuO-G+5tw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Corp.
Message-ID: <40881285-ce6c-e6f1-1272-feb86eef0973@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:15:10 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKSb8ZEq7mG0XwGx_btLxoEU5XDTu_p6eseDGuO-G+5tw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 15.01.2020 4:52, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:50 AM Alexey Budankov
> <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14.01.2020 21:06, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:47 AM Alexey Budankov
>>> <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we talked at RFC series of CAP_SYS_TRACING last year, I just expected
>>>>>> to open it for enabling/disabling kprobes, not for creation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can accept user who has no admin priviledge but the CAP_SYS_PERFMON,
>>>>>> to shoot their foot by their own risk, I'm OK to allow it. (Even though,
>>>>>> it should check the max number of probes to be created by something like
>>>>>> ulimit)
>>>>>> I think nowadays we have fixed all such kernel crash problems on x86,
>>>>>> but not sure for other archs, especially on the devices I can not reach.
>>>>>> I need more help to stabilize it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how enable/disable is any safer than creation.
>>>>> If there are kernel bugs in kprobes the kernel will crash anyway.
>>>>> I think such partial CAP_SYS_PERFMON would be very confusing to the users.
>>>>> CAP_* is about delegation of root privileges to non-root.
>>>>> Delegating some of it is ok, but disallowing creation makes it useless
>>>>> for bpf tracing, so we would need to add another CAP later.
>>>>> Hence I suggest to do it right away instead of breaking
>>>>> sys_perf_even_open() access into two CAPs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexei, Masami,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your meaningful input.
>>>> If we know in advance that it still can crash the system in some cases and on
>>>> some archs, even though root fully controls delegation thru CAP_SYS_PERFMON,
>>>> such delegation looks premature until the crashes are avoided. So it looks like
>>>> access to eBPF for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged processes is the subject for
>>>> a separate patch set.
>>>
>>> perf_event_open is always dangerous. sw cannot guarantee non-bugginess of hw.
>>
>> Sure, software cannot guarantee, but known software bugs could still be fixed,
>> that's what I meant.
>>
>>> imo adding a cap just for pmc is pointless.
>>> if you add a new cap it should cover all of sys_perf_event_open syscall.
>>> subdividing it into sw vs hw counters, kprobe create vs enable, etc will
>>> be the source of ongoing confusion. nack to such cap.
>>>
>>
>> Well, as this patch set already covers complete perf_event_open functionality,
>> and also eBPF related parts too, could you please review and comment on it?
>> Does the patches 2/9 and 5/9 already bring all required extentions?
> 
> yes. the current patches 2 and 5 look good to me.

Thanks. I appreciate your cooperation.

> I would only change patch 1 to what Andy was proposing earlier:

Could you please share the link to the proposal to get more details?
In this patch set discussion there was only this [1] on more generic 
naming of PERFMON cap from Andi Kleen.

> 
> static inline bool perfmon_capable(void)
> {
> if (capable_noaudit(CAP_PERFMON))
>   return capable(CAP_PERFMON);
> if (capable_noaudit(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>   return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
> 
> return capable(CAP_PERFMON);
> }

Yes, this makes sense and adds up.

> I think Andy was trying to preserve the order of audit events.
> 
> I'm also suggesting to drop SYS from the cap name. It doesn't add any value
> to the name.

Agreed, CAP_PERFMON sounds more generic, as it actually is.

Gratefully,
Alexey

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191211203648.GA862919@tassilo.jf.intel.com/