On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 14:58 +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 21:28 +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:51:07PM +0100, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > > > Is /proc/pid/oom_adj supposed to be user writable? > > > > > > It needs capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE). Is OLPC going to employ SELinux or > > > somesuch for Bitfrost? If not then some kind of mini-server running as > > > root will be needed to traverse the security barrier. > > > > We already have that (hardwaremanager on dev.laptop.org). > > Can any process connect to hardwaremanager? If so, then oom_adj needs > to be somewhere else. A malicious process could set oom_adj such that > the next process to die is sugar. Only sugar should have access to set > oom_adj. >
Currently any process can connect, but only sugar really needs to. I don't see problem with limiting access. > > Though I think functionality which is generic and fit in HAL should just > > go there (less code for us to maintain). I have no idea if oom_adj fits > > in HAL. > > Doesn't HAL just issue events and load kernel modules? I don't think > oom_adj belongs in HAL. Well they added an interface to get the battery level for example. That's why I'm confused about what belongs to HAL and what doesn't. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
