Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] capabilities: introduce CAP_PERFMON to kernel and user space

[Alexey Budankov]

On 07.02.2020 16:39, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
> On 07.02.2020 14:38, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On 22.01.2020 17:25, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>>> On 22.01.2020 17:07, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>>> It keeps the implementation simple and readable. The implementation is more
>>>>>> performant in the sense of calling the API - one capable() call for CAP_PERFMON
>>>>>> privileged process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it bloats audit log for CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileged and unprivileged processes,
>>>>>> but this bloating also advertises and leverages using more secure CAP_PERFMON
>>>>>> based approach to use perf_event_open system call.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can live with that. We just need to document that when you see
>>>>> both a CAP_PERFMON and a CAP_SYS_ADMIN audit message for a process,
>>>>> try only allowing CAP_PERFMON first and see if that resolves the
>>>>> issue. We have a similar issue with CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH versus
>>>>> CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE.
>>>>
>>>> perf security [1] document can be updated, at least, to align and document 
>>>> this audit logging specifics.
>>>
>>> And I plan to update the document right after this patch set is accepted.
>>> Feel free to let me know of the places in the kernel docs that also
>>> require update w.r.t CAP_PERFMON extension.
>>
>> The documentation update wants be part of the patch set and not planned
>> to be done _after_ the patch set is merged.
> 
> Well, accepted. It is going to make patches #11 and beyond.

Patches #11 and #12 of v7 [1] contain information on CAP_PERFMON intention and usage.
Patch for man-pages [2] extends perf_event_open.2 documentation.

Thanks,
Alexey

---
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c8de937a-0b3a-7147-f5ef-69f467e87a13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/18d1083d-efe5-f5f8-c531-d142c0e5c1a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/