Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Here's Chris' patch for reference:
> 
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/6408569e13ed6e80

how does this patch solve the separation of 'negative nice values' and
'RT priority rlimits'? In one piece of code it handles the rlimit value
as a 0-39 nice value, in another place it handles it as a limit for a
1-100 RT priority range. The two ranges overlap and have nothing to do
with each other. [*]

anyway, as long as it doesnt touch the scheduler runtime code (and it
doesnt), both types of solutions are fine to me - it's basically the
security-subsystem people's call.

if the patch solves the negative-nice-value and the RT-priority issues
at once, then it indeed looks more flexible (and more generic) than the
LSM solution. [**]

	Ingo

[*]  one acceptable way to 'merge' the two priority ranges would be to
     introduce a unified priority range of 0-139: 0-39 would be for nice
     values while 40-139 would be for RT priorities 1-99. NOTE: due to
     rlimit semantics (users can always lower them without any security
     checks), value 39 _must_ denote nice -20 and value 0 must denote
     nice +19. I.e. it must strictly in increasing priority order.

[**] in fact, the 'Gnome problem' wrt. suid/gid binaries would be solved 
     via the rlimit too.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/