[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHKB1wKh3-9icDXK9_qorJr4DZ61Bt7mZznFT75R99a8LeMi_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:24:17 +0200
From: Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>
To: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...il.com
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
ribalda@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, jannh@...gle.com,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, gpiccoli@...lia.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
evn@...gle.com, poprdi@...gle.com, jordyzomer@...gle.com,
krisman@...e.de, andres@...razel.de, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] io_uring: add a sysctl to disable io_uring system-wide
Hi all,
Is there still anything that needs to be changed in this patch? As far as
I can tell all the remaining feedback has been addressed.
--
Matteo
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 23:10, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>
>
> Introduce a new sysctl (io_uring_disabled) which can be either 0, 1, or
> 2. When 0 (the default), all processes are allowed to create io_uring
> instances, which is the current behavior. When 1, io_uring creation is
> disabled (io_uring_setup() will fail with -EPERM) for unprivileged
> processes not in the kernel.io_uring_group group. When 2, calls to
> io_uring_setup() fail with -EPERM regardless of privilege.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>
> [JEM: modified to add io_uring_group]
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists