[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
Quoting Kees Cook (
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:09 AM, John Stultz <> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <> wrote:
> >> Quoting Kees Cook (
> >>> 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.

Thanks - so it seems to me if we go with CAP_SYS_NICE we are giving
those who can already hose the system another vector to doing so. But
if we require CAP_SYS_PTRACE then we are giving those who can newly hose
the system also the ability to subvert any task. It sounds like
CAP_SYS_NICE is the winner.

Kees, you said adding a capability is hard - can you expound on that?

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-14 20:21    [W:0.073 / U:5.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site