Re: [PATCH 2/2] proc: Add /proc/<pid>/timerslack_ns interface

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org):
> 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.

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?