From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:44:37 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra Message-ID: <20160803214437.GI6879@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1469630746-32279-1-git-send-email-jeffv@google.com> <20160802095243.GD6862@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160802203037.GC6879@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87shulix2z.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] security, perf: allow further restriction of perf_event_open To: Kees Cook Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Jeff Vander Stoep , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Shishkin , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , LKML , Jonathan Corbet List-ID: On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:53:41AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > Kees Cook writes: > > > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> Let me take this another way instead. What would be a better way to > >> provide a mechanism for system owners to disable perf without an LSM? > >> (Since far fewer folks run with an enforcing "big" LSM: I'm seeking as > >> wide a coverage as possible.) > > > > I vote for sandboxes. Perhaps seccomp. Perhaps a per userns sysctl. > > Perhaps something else. > > Peter, did you happen to see Eric's solution to this problem for > namespaces? Basically, a per-userns sysctl instead of a global sysctl. > Is that something that would be acceptable here? Someone would have to educate me on what a userns is and how that would help here.