Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:09:28 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc:     io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Are CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_NICE still needed for SQPOLL?
Message-ID: <20210325140928.fuu2iap54ysevssz@steredhat>
References: <20210325113322.ecnji3xejozqdpwt@steredhat>
 <842e6993-8cde-bc00-4de1-7b8689a397a8@gmail.com>
 <46016d10-7b87-c0f6-ed0f-18f89a2572d0@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46016d10-7b87-c0f6-ed0f-18f89a2572d0@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:02:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>On 3/25/21 7:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 25/03/2021 11:33, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> Hi Jens, Hi Pavel,
>>> I was taking a look at the new SQPOLL handling with io_thread instead of kthread. Great job! Really nice feature that maybe can be reused also in other scenarios (e.g. vhost).
>>>
>>> Regarding SQPOLL, IIUC these new threads are much closer to user threads, so is there still a need to require CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_NICE to enable SQPOLL?
>>
>> Hmm, good question. If there are under same cgroup (should be in
>> theory), and if we add more scheduling points (i.e. need_resched()), and
>> don't see a reason why not. Jens?
>>
>> Better not right away though. IMHO it's safer to let the change settle
>> down for some time.
>
>Yes, agree on both counts - we are not going to need elevated privileges
>going forward, but I'd also rather defer making that change until 5.13
>so we have a bit more time on the current (new) base first.

Yeah, that makes sense to me!

Thank you both for the quick clarification,
Stefano