On 2025/1/6 23:59, James Clark wrote:
On 23/12/2024 7:06 am, Luo Gengkun wrote:
For perf_allow_kernel and perf_allow_cpu, both return EACCES when
require
CAP_PERFMON or CAP_SYS_ADMIN permissions, so update
perf_allow_tracepoint
to keep them the same.
Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/perf_event.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
index 5d2ec4283ebf..c1bc0d7a275b 100644
--- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
+++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
@@ -1685,7 +1685,7 @@ static inline int perf_allow_cpu(void)
static inline int perf_allow_tracepoint(void)
{
if (sysctl_perf_event_paranoid > -1 && !perfmon_capable())
- return -EPERM;
+ return -EACCES;
Is this necessary other than for consistency? If not it might be best
to leave it inconsistent even if it's wrong. I see quite a few "if
EPERM do this..." type things in Perf, so changing this would break
error messages being shown to users.
If anything, EPERM seems more correct because EACCESS is more about
file access.
I think so, from the perspective of capabilities and
sysctl_perf_event_paranoid, EPERM is more appropriate.
Thanks
James
Thanks for your review.
Actually, I am not sure if it's typo or intentional, so this patch is
more like a consultation. It's okay to keep it the same so it doesn't
torture the user.
Thanks
Gengkun
