Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:18:27 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        jolsa@kernel.org, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf/core: Fake regs for leaked kernel samples
Message-ID: <20200806091827.GY2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200731025617.16243-1-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
 <20200731025617.16243-2-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
 <20200804114900.GI2657@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4c958d61-11a7-9f3e-9e7d-d733270144a1@linux.intel.com>
 <20200805124454.GP2657@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <797aa4de-c618-f340-ad7b-cef38c96b035@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <797aa4de-c618-f340-ad7b-cef38c96b035@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:26:29AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:

> > +static struct pt_regs *sanitize_sample_regs(struct perf_event *event, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +	struct pt_regs *sample_regs = regs;
> > +
> > +	/* user only */
> > +	if (!event->attr.exclude_kernel || !event->attr.exclude_hv ||
> > +	    !event->attr.exclude_host   || !event->attr.exclude_guest)
> > +		return sample_regs;
> > +
> 
> Is this condition correct?
> 
> Say counting user event on host, exclude_kernel = 1 and exclude_host = 0. It
> will go "return sample_regs" path.

I'm not sure, I'm terminally confused on virt stuff.

Suppose we have nested virt:

	L0-hv
	|
	G0/L1-hv
	   |
	   G1

And we're running in G0, then:

 - 'exclude_hv' would exclude L0 events
 - 'exclude_host' would ... exclude L1-hv events?
 - 'exclude_guest' would ... exclude G1 events?

Then the next question is, if G0 is a host, does the L1-hv run in
G0 userspace or G0 kernel space?

I was assuming G0 userspace would not include anything L1 (kvm is a
kernel module after all), but what do I know.

> > @@ -11609,7 +11636,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> >   	if (err)
> >   		return err;
> > -	if (!attr.exclude_kernel) {
> > +	if (!attr.exclude_kernel || !attr.exclude_callchain_kernel ||
> > +	    !attr.exclude_hv || !attr.exclude_host || !attr.exclude_guest) {
> >   		err = perf_allow_kernel(&attr);
> >   		if (err)
> >   			return err;
> > 
> 
> I can understand the conditions "!attr.exclude_kernel || !attr.exclude_callchain_kernel".
> 
> But I'm not very sure about the "!attr.exclude_hv || !attr.exclude_host || !attr.exclude_guest".

Well, I'm very sure G0 userspace should never see L0 or G1 state, so
exclude_hv and exclude_guest had better be true.

> On host, exclude_hv = 1, exclude_guest = 1 and exclude_host = 0, right?

Same as above, is G0 host state G0 userspace?

> So even exclude_kernel = 1 but exclude_host = 0, we will still go
> perf_allow_kernel path. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Yes, because with those permission checks in place it means you have
permission to see kernel bits.