On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:46 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:33:11PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:29 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:49:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 05:48:00PM +0300, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > But short term I don't see any other solution than stop testing
> > > > > sched_setattr because it does not check arguments enough to prevent
> > > > > system misbehavior. Which is a pity because syzkaller has found some
> > > > > bad misconfigurations that were oversight on checking side.
> > > > > Any other suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > Keep the times down to a few seconds? Of course, that might also
> > > > fail to find interesting bugs.
> > >
> > > Right, if syzcaller can put a limit on the period/deadline parameters
> > > (and make sure to not write "-1" to
> > > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us) then per the in-kernel
> > > access-control should not allow these things to happen.
> >
> > Since we are racing with emails, could you suggest a 100% safe
> > parameters? Because I only hear people saying "safe", "sane",
> > "well-behaving" :)
> > If we move the check to user-space, it does not mean that we can get
> > away without actually defining what that means.
>
> Right, well, that's part of the problem. I think Paul just did the
> reverse math and figured that 95% of X must not be larger than my
> watchdog timeout and landed on 14 seconds.
>
> I'm thinking 4 seconds (or rather 4.294967296) would be a very nice
> number.
>
> > Now thinking of this, if we come up with some simple criteria, could
> > we have something like a sysctl that would allow only really "safe"
> > parameters?
>
> I suppose we could do that, something like:
> sysctl_deadline_period_{min,max}. I'll have to dig back a bit on where
> we last talked about that and what the problems where.
>
> For one, setting the min is a lot harder, but I suppose we can start at
> TICK_NSEC or something.
Now syzkaller will drop CAP_SYS_NICE for the test process:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/f3ad68446455acbe562e0057931e6256b8b991e8
I will close this bug report as invalid once the change reaches all
syzbot instances, if nobody plans any other on this bug.
