Re: IOPRIO_CLASS_RT without CAP_SYS_ADMIN?

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>]

On 2020-08-20 17:35, Khazhismel Kumykov wrote:
> It'd be nice to allow a process to send RT requests without granting
> it the wide capabilities of CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and we already have a
> capability which seems to almost fit this priority idea -
> CAP_SYS_NICE? Would this fit there?
> 
> Being capable of setting IO priorities on per request or per thread
> basis (be it async submission or w/ thread ioprio_set) is useful
> especially when the userspace has its own prioritization/scheduling
> before hitting the kernel, allowing us to signal to the kernel how to
> order certain IOs, and it'd be nice to separate this from ADMIN for
> non-root processes, in a way that's less error prone than e.g. having
> a trusted launcher ionice the process and then drop priorities for
> everything but prio requests.

Hi Khazhy,

In include/uapi/linux/capability.h I found the following:

/* Allow raising priority and setting priority on other (different
   UID) processes */
/* Allow use of FIFO and round-robin (realtime) scheduling on own
   processes and setting the scheduling algorithm used by another
   process. */
/* Allow setting cpu affinity on other processes */
#define CAP_SYS_NICE         23

If it is acceptable that every process that has permission to submit
IOPRIO_CLASS_RT I/O also has permission to modify the priority of
other processes then extending CAP_SYS_NICE is an option. Another
possibility is to extend the block cgroup controller such that the
capability to submit IOPRIO_CLASS_RT I/O can be enabled through the
cgroup interface. There may be other approaches. I'm not sure what
the best approach is.

Bart.