From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D3D8E0002 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id w4so2223556wrt.21 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nautica.notk.org (nautica.notk.org. [91.121.71.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l188si22318495wmf.75.2019.01.15.21.46.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:46:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:46:13 +0100 From: Dominique Martinet Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mincore: allow for making sys_mincore() privileged Message-ID: <20190116054613.GA11670@nautica> References: <20190110004424.GH27534@dastard> <20190110070355.GJ27534@dastard> <20190110122442.GA21216@nautica> <5c3e7de6.1c69fb81.4aebb.3fec@mx.google.com> <9E337EA6-7CDA-457B-96C6-E91F83742587@amacapital.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Josh Snyder , Dave Chinner , Jiri Kosina , Matthew Wilcox , Jann Horn , Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Peter Zijlstra , Michal Hocko , Linux-MM , kernel list , Linux API Linus Torvalds wrote on Wed, Jan 16, 2019: > *Very* few people want to run their databases as root. In the case of happycache, this isn't the database doing the dump/restore, but a separate process that could have the cap - it's better if we can do without though, and from his readme he runs as user cassandra in the /var/lib/cassandra directory for example so that'd match the file owner. For pgfincore, it's a postgres extension so the main process does it - but it does have files open as write as well as being the owner. > Jiri's original patch kind of acknowledged that by making the new test > be conditional, and off by default. So then it's a "only do this for > lockdown mode, because normal people won't find it acceptable". > > And I'm not a huge fan of that approach. If you don't protect normal > people, then what's the point, really? I agree with that. "Being owner or has cap" (whichever cap) is probably OK. On the other hand, writeability check makes more sense in general - could we somehow check if the user has write access to the file instead of checking if it currently is opened read-write? -- Dominique