Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 04:38:14PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 13:28 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > But I'm also still not convinced this policy can't be most flexibly
> > handled by a setuid helper together with the mlock rlimit.
> 
> Quoting my message from a few days ago:
> 
> On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 17:18 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Why can't this be done with a simple SUID helper to promote given
> > tasks to RT with sched_setschedule, doing essentially all the checks
> > this LSM is doing? 
> > 
> > Objections of "because it requires dangerous root or suid" don't fly,
> > an RT app under user control can DoS the box trivially. Never mind you
> > need root to configure the LSM anyway..
> 
> Yes but a bug in an app running as root can trash the filesystem.  The
> worst you can do with RT privileges is lock up the machine.

Yes. So can a bug in an LSM or in new rlimits code.

But bugs can be fixed. Poorly designed APIs cannot. That's why the
best API from the kernel perspective is no API: do it in userspace
wherever possible. Bring the kernel in only when the kernel can do it
better, more cleanly, and more generally. The rlimits-on-priorities
approach may qualify in that it might solve problems for other folks
(games on the desktop, CD burning, and the like) and isn't a bad fit
into the rest of the standard security model, but it's still got a
wart or two.

I suppose I ought to spell out my personal LSM bias while I'm at it:

- it invites ad-hoc extensions like this
- we have enough security issues without supporting a proliferation of
  incompatible security models

So while I think it's perfectly fine for people to kludge up things
like this, I don't think they belong in the tree unless they're _very_
generally applicable and _very_ well thought out. LSMs should not be
treated like drivers.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.