linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/1] CAP_SYS

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:34:45 -0800
From:   Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/1] CAP_SYS_NICE inside user namespace



On 11/18/19 11:36 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:04 PM Prakash Sangappa
> <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com> wrote:
>> Some of the capabilities(7) which affect system wide resources, are ineffective
>> inside user namespaces. This restriction applies even to root user( uid 0)
>> from init namespace mapped into the user namespace. One such capability
>> is CAP_SYS_NICE which is required to change process priority. As a result of
>> which the root user cannot perform operations like increase a process priority
>> using -ve nice value or set RT priority on processes inside the user namespace.
>> A workaround to deal with this restriction is to use the help of a process /
>> daemon running outside the user namespace to change process priority, which is
>> a an inconvenience.
> What is the goal here, in the big picture? Is your goal to allow
> container admins to control the priorities of their tasks *relative to
> each other*, or do you actually explicitly want container A to be able
> to decide that its current workload is more timing-sensitive than
> container B's?

It is more the latter. Admin should be able to explicitly decide that 
container A
workload is to be given priority over other containers.