Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261878AbVANDOn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:14:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261882AbVANDOn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:14:43 -0500 Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.113]:2710 "HELO smtp016.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261878AbVANC5u (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:57:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM From: Nick Piggin To: Paul Davis Cc: utz lehmann , Lee Revell , Arjan van de Ven , "Jack O'Quin" , Chris Wright , Matt Mackall , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, LKML , Con Kolivas In-Reply-To: <200501140240.j0E2esKG026962@localhost.localdomain> References: <200501140240.j0E2esKG026962@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:57:44 +1100 Message-Id: <1105671464.5402.49.camel@npiggin-nld.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2326 Lines: 51 On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 21:40 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are definitely privileged operations and you > > this is the crux of what this whole debate is about. for all of you > people who think about linux on multi-user systems with network > connectivity, running servers and so forth, this is clearly a given. > > but there is large and growing body of machines that run linux where > the sole human user of the machine has a strong and overwhelming > desire to have tasks run with the characteristics offered by > SCHED_FIFO and/or SCHED_RR. are they still "privileged" operations on > this class of linux system? what about linux installed on an embedded > system, with a small LCD screen and the sole purpose of running audio > apps live? are they still privileged then? > I think yes, because their misuse can trivially take down the machine by definition. So it is still privileged in the context of that system. > i think there is room for debate, but its clear that in general, > SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR's "definite" status as privileged operations is > not clear. we are trying to find ways to provide access to it in ways > that don't conflict with the other categories of linux systems where > it clearly needs to be off-limits to unprivileged users. > In such a system, sure you could make allowances by elevating privileges or what have you. I guess the tricky part is exactly how to make these allowances. I've joined the thread too late (and don't have the knowledge) to really get into that... but I just wanted to be clear that watering down SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO basically just makes them no good to anyone. I personally can't see how a scheduling policy can allow deterministic access to the CPU without being a privileged operation. If you don't need deterministic access to the scheduler, then let's talk about why SCHED_OTHER isn't good enough. If you do, then we're talking about security access I think. Nick http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile - Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile. - 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/