linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add a new sysctl to disable io

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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:12:42 +0200
From:   Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>
To:     Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        jordyzomer@...gle.com, evn@...gle.com, poprdi@...gle.com,
        corbet@....net, axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        chenhuacai@...nel.org, steve@....org, gpiccoli@...lia.com,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add a new sysctl to disable io_uring system-wide

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Have you considered that the new sysctl is "sticky like kexec_load_disabled.
> When the user disables it there is no way to turn it back on until the
> system is rebooted.

Are you suggesting making this sysctl sticky? Are there any examples of how to
implement a sticky sysctl that can take more than 2 values in case we want to
add an intermediate level that still allows privileged processes to use
io_uring? Also, what would be the use case? Preventing privileged processes
from re-enabling io_uring?

Thanks!
--
Matteo