linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] prctl: Add PR_SET_TIMERSLACK_PID for setting timer slack of an arbitrary thread.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160205123230.bd8bd228a0f3798a281266eb@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:32:30 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ruchi Kandoi <kandoiruchi@...gle.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oren Laadan <orenl@...lrox.com>,
	Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...roid.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: Add PR_SET_TIMERSLACK_PID for setting timer
 slack of an arbitrary thread.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:13 -0800 John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri,  5 Feb 2016 10:08:43 -0800 John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> @@ -2218,6 +2222,27 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
> >>       case PR_GET_TID_ADDRESS:
> >>               error = prctl_get_tid_address(me, (int __user **)arg2);
> >>               break;
> >> +     case PR_SET_TIMERSLACK_PID:
> >> +             rcu_read_lock();
> >> +             tsk = find_task_by_vpid((pid_t)arg3);
> >
> > hm, as far as I can tell this is the first instance in which prctl() is
> > used to play with a task other than "current".  Maybe this isn't a good
> > precedent.
> >
> > If you look at all the other diddle-other-task functions in
> > kernel/sys.c, you'll see that they are standalone syscalls.  What
> > you've done here is just a bit lazy: added what is effectively a new
> > standalone syscall, only it has been hidden within the prctl() switch
> > statement.
> >
> > I don't see a practical problem with this - we could have implemented
> > all those other syscalls as prctl submodes as well.  But we didn't...
> >
> > IOW, it would be more consistent to add sys_set_timer_slack()?
> 
> I'm fine with moving this way.
> 
> Ruchi/Rom: Any objections to that idea?
> 
> Thomas/Arjan: Any other functionality we should consider including
> when adding a syscall to tweak timer slack?

A syscall is quite a bit more fuss - implement it on x86_64, provide a
no-op default in sys_ni.c, add a test suite into
tools/testing/selftests (mainly for arch maintainers), wait for the
various arch maintainers to wire it up.

Fortunately the build system now emits little messages which tell
maintainers that there's a new syscall which needs looking at.

And a manpage will be needed, but a prctl manpage patch would have been
needed anyway.