[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 2/9] perf/core: open access for CAP_SYS_PERFMON privileged process

[arnaldo.melo at gmail.com]

<keescook at chromium.org>,Jann Horn <jannh at google.com>,Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>,Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>,Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>,linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>,"linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org" <linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org>,"selinux at vger.kernel.org" <selinux at vger.kernel.org>,"intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>,"bpf at vger.kernel.org" <bpf at vger.kernel.org>,"linux-parisc at vger.kernel.org" <linux-parisc at vger.kernel.org>,"linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org>,"linux-perf-users at vger.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users at vger.kernel.org>,"linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org>,"oprofile-list at lists.sf.net" <oprofile-list at lists.sf.net>
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at kernel.org>
Message-ID: <A7F0BF73-9189-44BA-9264-C88F2F51CBF3 at kernel.org>

On January 10, 2020 9:23:27 PM GMT-03:00, Song Liu <songliubraving at fb.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 3:47 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at kernel.org>
>wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:45:31 -0300
>> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at kernel.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Em Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:52:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:02:34 +0100 Peter Zijlstra
><peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>> Again, this only allows attaching to previously created kprobes,
>it does
>>>>> not allow creating kprobes, right?
>>> 
>>>>> That is; I don't think CAP_SYS_PERFMON should be allowed to create
>>>>> kprobes.
>>> 
>>>>> As might be clear; I don't actually know what the user-ABI is for
>>>>> creating kprobes.
>>> 
>>>> There are 2 ABIs nowadays, ftrace and ebpf. perf-probe uses ftrace
>interface to
>>>> define new kprobe events, and those events are treated as
>completely same as
>>>> tracepoint events. On the other hand, ebpf tries to define new
>probe event
>>>> via perf_event interface. Above one is that interface. IOW, it
>creates new kprobe.
>>> 
>>> Masami, any plans to make 'perf probe' use the perf_event_open()
>>> interface for creating kprobes/uprobes?
>> 
>> Would you mean perf probe to switch to perf_event_open()?
>> No, perf probe is for setting up the ftrace probe events. I think we
>can add an
>> option to use perf_event_open(). But current kprobe creation from
>perf_event_open()
>> is separated from ftrace by design.
>
>I guess we can extend event parser to understand kprobe directly.
>Instead of
>
>	perf probe kernel_func
>	perf stat/record -e probe:kernel_func ...
>
>We can just do 
>
>	perf stat/record -e kprobe:kernel_func ...


You took the words from my mouth, exactly, that is a perfect use case, an alternative to the 'perf probe' one of making a disabled event that then gets activated via record/stat/trace, in many cases it's better, removes the explicit probe setup case.

Regards, 

- Arnaldo

>
>Thanks,
>Song