Hello, Serge. On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:00:11PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > I really don't know. The cgroupfs interface is a bit unfortunate in > > that it doesn't really express the constraints. To safely migrate a > > task, ISTM you ought to have some form of privilege over the task > > *and* some form of privilege over the cgroup. > > Agreed. The problem is that the privilege required should depend on > the controller (I guess). For memory and cpuset, CAP_SYS_NICE seems > right. Perhaps CAP_SYS_RESOURCE would be needed for some.. but then, > as I look through the lists (capabilities(7) and the list of controllers), > it seems like CAP_SYS_NICE works for everything. What else would we need? > Maybe CAP_NET_ADMIN for net_cls and net_prio? CAP_SYS_RESOURCE|CAP_SYS_ADMIN > for pids? Please see my other reply but I don't think it's a good idea to have these extra checks on the side when there already is hierarchical delegation mechanism which should be able to handle both resource control and process management delegation. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
