[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWb6LaLro-dCYF1Upm1=4Dag1JfrmsxrjWhc6x-keGzkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:09:33 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...lrox.com>,
Ruchi Kandoi <kandoiruchi@...gle.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...roid.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] proc: Add /proc/<pid>/timerslack_ns interface
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@...omium.org):
>> I think the original CAP_SYS_NICE should be fine. A malicious
>> CAP_SYS_NICE process can do plenty of insane things, I don't feel like
>> the timer slack adds to any realistic risks.
>
> Can someone give a detailed explanation of what you could do with
> the new timerslack feature and compare it to what you can do with
> sys_nice?
Looking at the man page for CAP_SYS_NICE, it looks like such a task
can set a task as SCHED_FIFO, so they could fork some spinning
processes and set them all SCHED_FIFO 99, in effect delaying all other
tasks for an infinite amount of time.
So one might argue setting large timerslack vlaues isn't that
different risk wise?
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists