Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262891AbVAKVma (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262889AbVAKVmQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:16 -0500 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:61112 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262885AbVAKViQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:38:16 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM From: Lee Revell To: Matt Mackall Cc: Chris Wright , "Jack O'Quin" , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , paul@linuxaudiosystems.com, arjanv@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050111212823.GX2940@waste.org> References: <20050107221059.GA17392@infradead.org> <20050107142920.K2357@build.pdx.osdl.net> <87mzvkxxck.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050110212019.GG2995@waste.org> <87d5wc9gx1.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050111195010.GU2940@waste.org> <871xcr3fjc.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050111200549.GW2940@waste.org> <1105475349.4295.21.camel@krustophenia.net> <20050111124707.J10567@build.pdx.osdl.net> <20050111212823.GX2940@waste.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:38:14 -0500 Message-Id: <1105479495.4295.61.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1019 Lines: 26 On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 13:28 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > But I'm also still not convinced this policy can't be most flexibly > handled by a setuid helper together with the mlock rlimit. > Quoting my message from a few days ago: On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 17:18 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > Why can't this be done with a simple SUID helper to promote given > tasks to RT with sched_setschedule, doing essentially all the checks > this LSM is doing? > > Objections of "because it requires dangerous root or suid" don't fly, > an RT app under user control can DoS the box trivially. Never mind you > need root to configure the LSM anyway.. Yes but a bug in an app running as root can trash the filesystem. The worst you can do with RT privileges is lock up the machine. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/