From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@cellrox.com>,
Ruchi Kandoi <kandoiruchi@google.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@android.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>, Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
Elliott Hughes <enh@google.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2 v3] security: Add task_settimerslack/task_gettimerslack LSM hook
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:12:51 +1000 (AEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1607201612020.23817@namei.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1468872671-9002-2-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, John Stultz wrote:
> As requested, this patch implements a task_settimerslack and
> task_gettimerslack LSM hooks so that the /proc/<tid>/timerslack_ns
> interface can have finer grained security policies applied to it.
>
> I've kept the CAP_SYS_NICE check in the timerslack_ns_write/show
> functions, as hiding it in the LSM hook seems too opaque, and doesn't
> seem like a widely enough adopted practice.
>
I may have missed something in the earlier discussion, but why do we need
new LSM hooks here vs. calling the existing set/getscheduler hooks?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-20 6:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 20:11 [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v3] proc: Relax /proc/<tid>/timerslack_ns capability requirements John Stultz
2016-07-18 20:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2 v3] security: Add task_settimerslack/task_gettimerslack LSM hook John Stultz
2016-07-18 20:17 ` Nick Kralevich
2016-07-18 20:23 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2016-07-18 20:43 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-20 6:12 ` James Morris [this message]
2016-07-21 5:54 ` John Stultz
2016-07-21 11:43 ` James Morris
2016-07-18 20:16 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v3] proc: Relax /proc/<tid>/timerslack_ns capability requirements Nick Kralevich
2016-07-18 20:22 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2016-07-18 20:41 ` Kees Cook
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=alpine.LRH.2.20.1607201612020.23817@namei.org \
--to=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ccross@android.com \
--cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
--cc=enh@google.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=kandoiruchi@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nnk@google.com \
--cc=orenl@cellrox.com \
--cc=romlem@android.com \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@google.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®