Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] io_uring: add a sysctl to disable io_uring system-wide

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Sorry for the delayed response, EINBOXOVERFLOW.

On 2023-07-26 16:02:26 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023-06-30 15:10:03 +0000, Matteo Rizzo wrote:
> >> Introduce a new sysctl (io_uring_disabled) which can be either 0, 1,
> >> or 2. When 0 (the default), all processes are allowed to create io_uring
> >> instances, which is the current behavior. When 1, all calls to
> >> io_uring_setup fail with -EPERM unless the calling process has
> >> CAP_SYS_ADMIN. When 2, calls to io_uring_setup fail with -EPERM
> >> regardless of privilege.
> >
> > Hm, is there a chance that instead of requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN, a certain group
> > could be required (similar to hugetlb_shm_group)? Requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> > could have the unintended consequence of io_uring requiring tasks being run
> > with more privileges than needed... Or some other more granular way of
> > granting the right to use io_uring?
> That's fine with me, so long as there is still an option to completely
> disable io_uring.

Makes sense.

> > ISTM that it'd be nice if e.g. a systemd service specification could allow
> > some services to use io_uring, without allowing it for everyone, or requiring
> > to run services effectively as root.
> Do you have a proposal for how that would work?

I think group based permissions would allow for it, even if perhaps not in the
most beautiful manner. Systemd can configure additional groups for a service
with SupplementaryGroups, so adding a "io_uring" group or such should work.


Andres Freund

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux