lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] proc: Add /proc/<pid>/timerslack_ns interface
From
Date
On 7/14/2016 10:45 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:09 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
>>> Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org):
>>>> I think the original CAP_SYS_NICE should be fine. A malicious
>>>> CAP_SYS_NICE process can do plenty of insane things, I don't feel like
>>>> the timer slack adds to any realistic risks.
>>>
>>> Can someone give a detailed explanation of what you could do with
>>> the new timerslack feature and compare it to what you can do with
>>> sys_nice?
>>
>> Looking at the man page for CAP_SYS_NICE, it looks like such a task
>> can set a task as SCHED_FIFO, so they could fork some spinning
>> processes and set them all SCHED_FIFO 99, in effect delaying all other
>> tasks for an infinite amount of time.
>>
>> So one might argue setting large timerslack vlaues isn't that
>> different risk wise?
>
> Right -- you can hose a system with CAP_SYS_NICE already; I don't
> think timerslack realistically changes that.

fair enough

the worry of being able to time attack things is there already with the SCHED_FIFO
so... purist objection withdrawn in favor of the pragmatic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-14 20:21    [W:0.046 / U:2.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site