lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf/core: Add macros for possible sysctl_perf_event_paranoid values
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:10:15AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2022 07:39, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > sysctl_perf_event_paranoid can have values from [-1, 0, 1, 2] which decides
> > on perf event restrictions for unprivileged users. But using them directly
> > makes it difficult to correlate exact restriction level they might impose.
> > This just adds macros for those numerical restriction values, making them
> > clear and improving readability.
> >
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> > kernel/events/core.c | 9 +--------
> > kernel/kallsyms.c | 3 ++-
> > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > index da759560eec5..78156b9154df 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > @@ -1359,14 +1359,28 @@ int perf_event_max_stack_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> > #define PERF_SECURITY_KERNEL 2
> > #define PERF_SECURITY_TRACEPOINT 3
> >
> > +/*
> > + * perf event paranoia level:
> > + * -1 - not paranoid at all
> > + * 0 - disallow raw tracepoint access for unpriv
> > + * 1 - disallow cpu events for unpriv
> > + * 2 - disallow kernel profiling for unpriv
> > + */
> > +enum {
> > + PERF_EVENT_DISALLOW_NONE = -1,
> > + PERF_EVENT_DISALLOW_TRACE,
> > + PERF_EVENT_DISALLOW_CPU,
> > + PERF_EVENT_DISALLOW_KERNEL
> > +};
> > +
> > static inline int perf_is_paranoid(void)
> > {
> > - return sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > -1;
> > + return sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > PERF_EVENT_DISALLOW_NONE;
> > }
> >
>
> Hi Anshuman,
>
> There are quite a few other instances of integers left in the tools code.
> If you search for perf_event_paranoid_check() and perf_event_paranoid()
> you will find them.
>
> I'm also wondering if it makes sense to return your new enum from all of
> the helper functions instead of an int and make it explicit that it's
> an instance of this new type? Although the compiler doesn't seem to warn
> about using integers so maybe it's not worth doing this.

so I don't see the point of all this; it's already wrapped in these
helper functions that have a descriptive name, why do we need more muck
on top?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-08 15:42    [W:0.071 / U:2.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site