From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Olivier Croquette <ocroquette@free.fr>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Changing RT priority in kernel 2.6 without CAP_SYS_NICE
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:07:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050418080750.GA20811@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42628300.5020009@free.fr>
looks fine to me, only minor nits:
- this area of code changed since 2.6.8 so it needed merging.
- whitespace damage: your patch had all tabs as spaces.
- whitespace style: stuff like "if(" should be "if (".
i've reworked and tested the patch (attached below) to apply against the
latest scheduler queue in -mm.
Ingo
--
From: Olivier Croquette <ocroquette@free.fr>
Presently, a process without the capability CAP_SYS_NICE can not change
its own policy, which is OK.
But it can also not decrease its RT priority (if scheduled with policy
SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO), which is what this patch changes.
The rationale is the same as for the nice value: a process should be
able to require less priority for itself. Increasing the priority is
still not allowed.
This is for example useful if you give a multithreaded user process a RT
priority, and the process would like to organize its internal threads
using priorities also. Then you can give the process the highest
priority needed N, and the process starts its threads with lower
priorities: N-1, N-2...
The POSIX norm says that the permissions are implementation specific, so
I think we can do that.
In a sense, it makes the permissions consistent whatever the policy is:
with this patch, process scheduled by SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR and
SCHED_OTHER can all decrease their priority.
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
cleaned up and merged to -mm.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- kernel/sched.c.orig
+++ kernel/sched.c
@@ -3436,12 +3436,22 @@ recheck:
if ((policy == SCHED_NORMAL) != (param->sched_priority == 0))
return -EINVAL;
- if ((policy == SCHED_FIFO || policy == SCHED_RR) &&
- !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE))
- return -EPERM;
- if ((current->euid != p->euid) && (current->euid != p->uid) &&
- !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE))
- return -EPERM;
+ /*
+ * Allow unprivileged RT tasks to decrease priority:
+ */
+ if (!capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
+ /* can't change policy */
+ if (policy != p->policy)
+ return -EPERM;
+ /* can't increase priority */
+ if (policy != SCHED_NORMAL &&
+ param->sched_priority > p->rt_priority)
+ return -EPERM;
+ /* can't change other user's priorities */
+ if ((current->euid != p->euid) &&
+ (current->euid != p->uid))
+ return -EPERM;
+ }
retval = security_task_setscheduler(p, policy, param);
if (retval)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-18 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-17 15:38 [PATCH] Changing RT priority in kernel 2.6 without CAP_SYS_NICE Olivier Croquette
2005-04-18 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-04-26 5:00 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 6:15 ` Olivier Croquette
2005-04-26 8:13 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050418080750.GA20811@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocroquette@free.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox