Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:37:37 +0530 | From | Anshuman Khandual <> | Subject | Regarding perfmon_capable() |
| |
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
| |