Hello.
> > > > And users of __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__ and kernel_thread() should not
> > > > have policy == SCHED_BATCH.
> >
> > well, there's one security consequence here - module loading
> > (request_module()), which spawns a kernel thread must not run as
> > SCHED_BATCH. I think the right solution for that path is to set the
> > policy to SCHED_OTHER upon entry, and restore it to the previous one
> > afterwards - this way the helper thread has SCHED_OTHER priority.
>
> i've solved this problem by making kernel_thread() spawned threads drop
> back to SCHED_NORMAL:
Note that request_module() also does waitpid(). So it's better to change
policy upon entry, as You suggested.
> I believe this is the secure way of doing it - independently of
> SCHED_BATCH - a RT task should not spawn a RT kernel thread 'unwillingly'.
Yes, but this semantic change should be ported to all archs
independently of
low level microoptimizations, for consistency. Rename all definitions to
arch_kernel_thread() ?
Btw, how about this tiny bit of cleanup:
asmlinkage void schedule_userspace(void)
{
/*
* Only handle batch tasks that are runnable.
*/
if (current->policy == SCHED_BATCH &&
current->state == TASK_RUNNING) {
runqueue_t *rq = this_rq_lock();
deactivate_batch_task(current, rq);
// we can keep irqs disabled:
spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}
schedule();
}
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST