lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] drop_pagecache syscall
    On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:57, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:50:04AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:47, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:10:41AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:01, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:14:53AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:35:27PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > >> >> >> > This functionality can be used by all the applications that want to have a
    > >> >> >> > better control over the page cache management (for example to immediately drop
    > >> >> >> > pages that for sure will not be reused in the near future, without calling
    > >> >> >> > posix_fadvise() for all the files they've touched), or to provide a more fine
    > >> >> >> > grained debugging feature usable by the filesystem benchmarks.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > The system call does not require root privileges and it can be called by any
    > >> >> >> > unprivileged application. For example, we can write a userspace tool to run
    > >> >> >> > something like this:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >   $ drop-pagecache /path/file_or_dir
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> That's a potential DOS vector, I think. Drop the pagecache in a hard
    > >> >> >> loop on the root fs of a busy server and watch it crawl...
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Yes, probably we could allow only the CAP_SYS_ADMIN tasks to execute
    > >> >> > this syscall.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> if /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches has any checks other than file permission
    > >> >> checks (i.e. UID==0), it'd probably be better to copy those rather
    > >> >> than picking something different.
    > >> >
    > >> > ok, what about checking current_euid() == 0?
    > >>
    > >> that's not what i meant.  if the drop_caches file already has certain
    > >> cap checks/whatever in place, let's use those.  if it doesnt, then
    > >> picking a cap level as you proposed makes sense.
    > >
    > > mmh, drop_caches has a file ownership (root:root) and a permission mask
    > > (0644), how to apply the same checks to a system call? The most similar
    > > thing seems to check the current euid. Am I missing something?
    >
    > my (limited) understanding is that you should be using cap checks, not UID
    > -mike

    Agreed. This was my initial proposal. It's not very good, but I also
    think it's the best option for this case.

    Thanks,
    -Andrea
    --
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-27 17:45    [W:0.026 / U:92.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site