Hi, Andres, 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. > 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? Why is this preferable to using a group? Cheers, Jeff
