[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180817103406.gmve4clcxmhwlmtc@queper01-lin>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:34:38 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] sched/core: uclamp: extend sched_setattr to
support utilization clamping
Hi Patrick,
On Thursday 09 Aug 2018 at 16:23:13 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 09-Aug 11:50, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 09/08/18 10:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > On 07-Aug 14:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > On 06/08/18 17:39, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 1) make CAP_SYS_NICE protected the clamp groups, with an optional boot
> > > time parameter to relax this check
> >
> > It seems to me that this might work well with that the intended usage of
> > the interface that you depict above. SMS only (or any privileged user)
> > will be in control of how groups are configured, so no problem for
> > normal users.
>
> Yes, well... apart normal users still getting a -ENOSPC is they are
> requesting one of the not pre-configured clamp values. Which is why
> the following bits can be helpful.
So IIUC, normal users would still be free of choosing their clamp values
as long as they choose one in the list of pre-allocated ones ? Is that
correct ?
If yes, that would still let normal users make they tasks look bigger no ?
They could just choose the clamp group with the highest min_clamp or
something. Isn't this a problem too ? I mean, if that can be abused easily,
I'm pretty sure people _will_ abuse it ...
Or maybe I misunderstood something ?
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists