lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/4] perf: Use CAP_SYS_ADMIN instead of euid==0 with ftrace
Hi Arnaldo,

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 07:23, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Em Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:42:17PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Em Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:27:06PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > > Em Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:22:51PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > > > Em Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:44:17AM -0400, Igor Lubashev escreveu:
> > > > > > @@ -281,7 +283,7 @@ static int __cmd_ftrace(struct perf_ftrace *ftrace, int argc, const char **argv)
> > > > > > .events = POLLIN,
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (geteuid() != 0) {
> > > > > > + if (!perf_cap__capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > > > > > pr_err("ftrace only works for root!\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess we should update the error message too?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I.e. I applied this as a follow up patch:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c b/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
> > > > index 01a5bb58eb04..ba8b65c2f9dc 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
> > > > @@ -284,7 +284,12 @@ static int __cmd_ftrace(struct perf_ftrace *ftrace, int argc, const char **argv)
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > if (!perf_cap__capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > > > - pr_err("ftrace only works for root!\n");
> > > > + pr_err("ftrace only works for %s!\n",
> > > > +#ifdef HAVE_LIBCAP_SUPPORT
> > > > + "users with the SYS_ADMIN capability"
> > > > +#else
> > > > + "root"
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > );
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > > return -1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've pushed the whole set to my tmp.perf/cap branch, please chec
> >
> > Please hold on before moving further - I'm getting a segmentation
> > fault on ARM64 that I'm still trying to figure out.
>
> This is just sitting in my tmp branch, and in my local perf/core branch,
> so that I can test it with the containers, etc.
>
> Is this related to the following fix?

That is the first thing I thought about but no, it has nothing to do
with it. Patch 3/4 is where the problem shows up. The code in the
patch is fine, it is the repercussion it has on other part that needs
to be investigated.

Right now I see that kmap->ref_reloc_sym is NULL here [1] when tracing
with anything else than the 'u' option. I am currently investigating
the problem.

Igor, please see if you can reproduce on QEMU or an ARM64 based platform.

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.3-rc4/source/tools/perf/util/event.c#L945

>
> commit 3e70008a6021fffd2cd1614734603ea970773060
> Author: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Date: Fri Aug 9 18:47:52 2019 +0800
>
> perf trace: Fix segmentation fault when access syscall info on arm64
>
> 'perf trace' reports the segmentation fault as below on Arm64:
>
> # perf trace -e string -e augmented_raw_syscalls.c
> LLVM: dumping tools/perf/examples/bpf/augmented_raw_syscalls.o
> perf: Segmentation fault
> Obtained 12 stack frames.
> perf(sighandler_dump_stack+0x47) [0xaaaaac96ac87]
> linux-vdso.so.1(+0x5b7) [0xffffadbeb5b7]
> /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(strlen+0x10) [0xfffface7d5d0]
> /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(_IO_vfprintf+0x1ac7) [0xfffface49f97]
> /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__vsnprintf_chk+0xc7) [0xffffacedfbe7]
> perf(scnprintf+0x97) [0xaaaaac9ca3ff]
> perf(+0x997bb) [0xaaaaac8e37bb]
> perf(cmd_trace+0x28e7) [0xaaaaac8ec09f]
> perf(+0xd4a13) [0xaaaaac91ea13]
> perf(main+0x62f) [0xaaaaac8a147f]
> /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe3) [0xfffface22d23]
> perf(+0x57723) [0xaaaaac8a1723]
> Segmentation fault
>
> This issue is introduced by commit 30a910d7d3e0 ("perf trace:
> Preallocate the syscall table"), it allocates trace->syscalls.table[]
> array and the element count is 'trace->sctbl->syscalls.nr_entries'; but
> on Arm64, the system call number is not continuously used; e.g. the
> syscall maximum id is 436 but the real entries is only 281.
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-13 18:37    [W:0.062 / U:28.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site