On Tue, August 20, 2019 at 1:14 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Arnaldo, once we decide what the right fix is, I am happy to post the > update (options 1, 1+2) as a patch series. > > I think you should get the checks for ref_reloc_sym in place so as to make the > code overall more robust, and also go on continuing to make the checks in > tools/perf/ to match what is checked on the other side of the mirror, i.e. by > the kernel, so from a quick read, please put first the robustness patches > (check ref_reloc_sym) do your other suggestions and update the warnings, > then refresh the two patches that still are not in my perf/core branch: > > [acme@quaco perf]$ git rebase perf/core > First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... > Applying: perf tools: Use CAP_SYS_ADMIN with perf_event_paranoid checks > Applying: perf symbols: Use CAP_SYSLOG with kptr_restrict checks > [acme@quaco perf]$ > > I've pushed out perf/cap, so you can go from there as it is rebased on my > current perf/core. > > Then test all these cases: with/without libcap, with euid==0 and different > than zero, with capabilities, etc, patch by patch so that we don't break > bisection nor regress,
All done. I've posted the update as a new follow-up series: https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/1566869956-7154-1-git-send-email-iluba...@akamai.com/ rebased on your perf/core. I've tested 336 permutations (see the new cover). In particular, I was able to reproduce the crash on perf/cap and confirm that no permutation can cause such crashes for any of the patches in the series. > Thanks and keep up the good work! > > - Arnaldo - Igor
