Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9be223fb-5803-b676-902a-28e1c168cd8a@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:37:37 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Subject: Regarding perfmon_capable()
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

In perf event subsystem and related platform drivers registering a PMU,
should perfmon_capable() be used directly ? OR just wondering if instead
perf_allow_[cpu|kernel|tracepoint]() helpers should be used which also
checks for 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' ? Should not both capabilities
and 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' decide whether kernel/cpu/tracepoint
events will be captured for unprivileged users.

arch/parisc/kernel/perf.c:      if (!perfmon_capable())
arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c:    if (!perfmon_capable())
arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c:    if (!perfmon_capable())
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c:           i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c:                       if (oa_freq_hz > i915_oa_max_sample_rate && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c:       if (i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c:       if (i915_perf_stream_paranoid && !perfmon_capable()) {
drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c:            if (perfmon_capable())
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PID_IN_CONTEXTIDR) && perfmon_capable())
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:     if (!perfmon_capable() &&

Although BPF might use perfmon_capabale() alone, because it was never
dependent on 'sysctl_perf_event_paranoid' ?

- Anshuman