On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:36:50PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: > On 08.01.2020 19:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:25:35PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: > >> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c > >> index 059ee7116008..d9db414f2197 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/events/core.c > >> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > >> @@ -9056,7 +9056,7 @@ static int perf_kprobe_event_init(struct perf_event *event) > >> if (event->attr.type != perf_kprobe.type) > >> return -ENOENT; > >> > >> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > >> + if (!perfmon_capable()) > >> return -EACCES; > >> > >> /* > > > > This one only allows attaching to already extant kprobes, right? It does > > not allow creation of kprobes. > > This unblocks creation of local trace kprobes and uprobes by CAP_SYS_PERFMON > privileged process, exactly the same as for CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileged process. I've no idea what you just said; it's just words. 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. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
