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

Lee Revell
2005-01-11T21:42:30Z

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.

Lee