On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:24:39AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >the problem i see with it is that, for this to be useful, (ie, help > >the people for which the capsys stuff is too much trouble), it has to > >be in the kernel that comes with their distribution. but i really > >don't see this getting into the mainline kernel...though perhaps media > >friendly distros will put it in. > > why do you see it this way? > > if someone has already cracked security such that they can write to > (say) /proc/sys/kernel/rtuser, they already have the power to do more > or less anything to the machine. they can *already* run SCHED_FIFO > tasks, install trojans, shutdown the system, repartition and/or > overwrite the hard drive. adding the capacity to let non-root users > run SCHED_FIFO and call mlockall is already included in the set of > things they can do - the /proc file just makes it simpler. > > in addition, if you add resource limits so that things can still be > killed, having user tasks running like this actually isn't much of a > problem - SCHED_FIFO and mlockall only represent a denial of service > attack if you can't kill them (as is the case at the moment).
Have a look at linux security modules. In the 2.5 kernel the patch you propose is not a patch, it is a kernel module. -- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
