# Re: \[RFC PATCH v1 1/1\] tracing/kprobe: Add multi-probe support for 'perf\_kprobe' PMU

- From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) \<mhiramat@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2023-08-21 15:20:02 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2023/08/2310062
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2023/08/2305677/t.md

```text
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:29:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt [ref] wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 03:02:18 -0700
> Song Liu [ref] wrote:
> 
> > > For the "unique symbol" + offset, you don't need the kallsyms, but need to
> > > access the System.map or vmlinux image. In this case, we don't need to expand
> > > the CAP_PERFMON capabilities.  
> > 
> > I agree this is not needed in this case. But I wonder whether it makes sense
> > to give CAP_PERFMON access to /proc/kallsyms. Will this change make
> > CAP_PERFMON less secure?
> 
> I guess the question is, does CAP_PERFMON allow seeing where the kernel
> mapped itself via some other means? If not, then no, I would nack this as
> being a security hole.

As Song said, CAP_PERFMON allows user to put a kprobe anywhere user specified,
and it can run BPF program on it. This means it can access raw address
information via registers. if so, CAP_PERFMON allows seeing the kernel map or
equivalent information at this point.

> 
> -- Steve


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) [ref]
```