Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]> writes:
> Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> From: Matteo Rizzo <[email protected]>
>>
>> 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 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 <[email protected]>
>> [JEM: modified to add io_uring_group]
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>> v4:
>>
>> * Add a kernel.io_uring_group sysctl to hold a group id that is allowed
>> to use io_uring. One thing worth pointing out is that, when a group
>> is specified, only users in that group can create an io_uring. That
>> means that if the root user is not in that group, root can not make
>> use of io_uring.
>
> Rejecting root if it's not in the group doesn't make much sense to
> me. Of course, root can always just add itself to the group, so it is
> not a security feature. But I'd expect 'sudo <smth>' to not start giving
> EPERM based on user group settings. Can you make CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> always allowed for option 1?
Yes, that's easy to do. I'd like to gather more opinions on this before
changing it, though.
>> I also wrote unit tests for liburing. I'll post that as well if there
>> is consensus on this approach.
>
> I'm fine with this approach as it allow me to easily reject non-root users.
Thanks for taking a look!
-Jeff