|
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:56:05 +0100 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:15:01PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote: > It's also worth noting that fine-grained control via a scoped > mechanism would likely only be used to implement *more restrictions* > on Android, not to make the feature less aggressive. It's desirable > for perf events to be disabled by default for non-root across the > board on Android. The part that's imperfect is that when a developer > uses a profiling tool, unprivileged usage is automatically enabled > across the board until reboot. Ideally, it would be enabled only for > the scope where it's needed. Sure; understood. > It would be very tricky to implement though, especially without adding > friction, and it would only have value for protecting devices being > used for development. It really doesn't seem to be worth the trouble, > especially since it doesn't persist on reboot. It's only a temporary > security hole and only for developer devices. I can see that for Android this isn't much of a win. It is beneficial elsewhere, and covers a larger set of use-cases. If perf were a filesystem object, we'd only allow access by a given 'perf' group, and that would be sufficient to avoid most of that friction (IIUC). I wonder what we can do that's similar. Thanks, Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.