Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:47:32 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <>
To: Alexey Budankov <>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <>, Kees Cook <>,
 Jann Horn <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Peter
 Zijlstra <>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
 <>, Andi Kleen <>, Alexander Shishkin
 <>, Jiri Olsa <>,
 Namhyung Kim <>, Mark Rutland <>,
 Tvrtko Ursulin <>, linux-kernel
 <>, ""
 <>, ""
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation/admin-guide: introduce
 perf-security.rst file

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:14:14 +0300
Alexey Budankov <> wrote:

> +For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
> +processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose effective
> +user ID is 0, referred to as superuser or root), and b) unprivileged processes
> +(whose effective UID is nonzero).

Is that really what's going on here?  If I understand things correctly,
it's looking for CAP_SYS_PTRACE rather than a specific UID; am I missing
something here?

(Also, you would want "*the* Linux implementation" in the first sentence

One other thing:

> +(whose effective UID is nonzero). Privileged processes bypass all kernel
> +security permission checks so perf_events performance monitoring is fully
> +available to privileged processes without *access*, *scope* and *resource*
> +restrictions.

Could I ask for a slight toning down of the markup here?  There's a lot of
*emphasis* here that isn't really needed and tends to get in the way.



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.