lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/16] sched/core: uclamp: request CAP_SYS_ADMIN by default
On 04-Sep 15:47, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28/08/18 14:53, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > The number of clamp groups supported is limited and defined at compile
> > time. However, a malicious user can currently ask for many different
>
> Even if not malicious.. :-)

Yeah... I should had write "ambitious" :D
... I'll get rid of all those geeks in the next respin ;)

> > clamp values thus consuming all the available clamp groups.
> >
> > Since on properly configured systems we expect only a limited set of
> > different clamp values, the previous problem can be mitigated by
> > allowing access to clamp groups configuration only to privileged tasks.
> > This should still allow a System Management Software to properly
> > pre-configure the system.
> >
> > Let's restrict the tuning of utilization clamp values, by default, to
> > tasks with CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.
> >
> > Whenever this should be considered too restrictive and/or not required
> > for a specific platforms, a kernel boot option is provided to change
> > this default behavior thus allowing non privileged tasks to change their
> > utilization clamp values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > Cc: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
> > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> > Cc: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> > Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> > Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> >
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > Others:
> > - new patch added in this version
> > - rebased on v4.19-rc1
> > ---
> > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 9871e649ffef..481f8214ea9a 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -4561,6 +4561,9 @@
> > <port#>,<js1>,<js2>,<js3>,<js4>,<js5>,<js6>,<js7>
> > See also Documentation/input/devices/joystick-parport.rst
> >
> > + uclamp_user [KNL] Enable task-specific utilization clamping tuning
> > + also from tasks without CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability.
> > +
> > udbg-immortal [PPC] When debugging early kernel crashes that
> > happen after console_init() and before a proper
> > console driver takes over, this boot options might
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 222397edb8a7..8341ce580a9a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -1510,14 +1510,29 @@ static inline int alloc_uclamp_sched_group(struct task_group *tg,
> > static inline void free_uclamp_sched_group(struct task_group *tg) { }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP */
> >
> > +static bool uclamp_user_allowed __read_mostly;
> > +static int __init uclamp_user_allow(char *str)
> > +{
> > + uclamp_user_allowed = true;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("uclamp_user", uclamp_user_allow);
> > +
> > static inline int __setscheduler_uclamp(struct task_struct *p,
> > - const struct sched_attr *attr)
> > + const struct sched_attr *attr,
> > + bool user)
>
> Wondering if you want to fold the check below inside the
>
> if (user && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
> ...
> }
>
> block. It would also save you from adding another parameter to the
> function.

So, there are two reasons for that:

1) _I think_ we don't want to depend on capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) but
instead on capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)

Does that make sense ?

If yes, the I cannot fold it in the block you reported above
because we will not check for users with CAP_SYS_NICE.

2) Then we could move it after that block, where there is another
set of checks with just:

if (user) {

We can potentially add the check there yes... but when uclamp is
not enabled we will still perform those checks or we have to add
some compiler guards...

3) ... or at least check for:

if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)

Which is what I'm doing right after the block above (2).

But, at this point, by passing in the parameter to the
__setscheduler_uclamp() call, I get the benefits of:

a) reducing uclamp specific code in the caller
b) avoiding the checks on !CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK build

> > {
> > int group_id[UCLAMP_CNT] = { UCLAMP_NOT_VALID };
> > int lower_bound, upper_bound;
> > struct uclamp_se *uc_se;
> > int result = 0;
> >
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
> > + user && !uclamp_user_allowed) {
> > + return -EPERM;
> > + }
> > +

Does all the above makes sense ?

Cheers,
Patrick

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-06 16:41    [W:0.068 / U:3.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site