On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Chetan Nanda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Sandeep K Sinha <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Chetan Nanda <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I am experimenting with real time process on kernel version 2.6.24
>> > (under
>> > UML) and having root privileges.
>> > I have written a simple code as follow:
>> >
>> > /*##############################*/
>> > int main()
>> > {
>> > pid_t pid;
>> > struct sched_param param;
>> > pid = getpid();
>> > memset((void *)¶m, 0 , sizeof(struct sched_param));
>> > param.sched_priority = 30;
>> >
>> > /*change the priority to rt*/
>> > sched_setscheduler(pid,SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
>> >
>> > while(1);
>> > }
>> > /*##############################*/
>> >
>> > On running this program cause system to hangs and this is as per the
>> > real
>> > time task implementation in the kernel.
>> > Which says a rt task with policy equal to 'SCHED_FIFO' will run till it
>> > voluntarily release CPU.
>> >
>> > Is there any way to kill such task? Isn't this kind of behavior
>> > compromising
>> > system security?
>> >
>>
>> AFAIK, No.
>>
>> And as far as the security is concerned, only a super user can run
>> this task. Meaning that the user has the authority to do such things.
>
> Suppose, If kernel is PID Namespace aware, and root user in one namespace
> run this kind of task then, (I think) whole system will come to halt. Is my
> understanding on this correct?
>
I just know of user/kernel space and any such process by root will
definitely cause the system to seize.
>>
>>
>>
>> > ~~
>> > Chetan Nanda
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Sandeep.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> “To learn is to change. Education is a process that changes the learner.”
>
>
--
Regards,
Sandeep.
“To learn is to change. Education is a process that changes the learner.”
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
