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? 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. Greetings, Andres Freund
