Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip for paranoid 3

[Ian Rogers]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:55 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:59:54PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:40:07PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > Add skip tests for paranoid level being 3.
> > > > Rather than skipping lines starting "Failed", skip lines containing
> > > > "failed" - making the behavior consistent with the previous python
> > > > version.
> > >
> > > paranoid 3 is an out of tree patch.
> >
> > Thanks, what is the right way to resolve this? My desktop appears to
> > be carrying the patch and I'd like the tests to be as green as
> > possible.
>
> Then you desktop is probably running a Debian or derivative distro
> kernel. You can run your own kernel, or ask the Debian team to ditch
> their hack and use the LSM hooks to further limit perf usage if they
> feel this is required.
>
> The big advantage of the LSM hooks is that they can explicitly
> white-list the perf binary while dis-allowing random users access to the
> syscall. That way perf will still work but the possible exploit
> potential is much reduced.

Thanks, neither rewriting Debian's security to use LSM or running a
custom kernel are going to work in the environment I have. Presumably
it is going to be a matter of policy not to allow this test fix to
land, meaning Debian kernels are going to show failing tests? I can
carry the patch privately but that's a tech-debt, merge-conflict mess.

Thanks,
Ian