[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
    On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:12:59AM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
    > Chris Wright <> writes:
    > > * Christoph Hellwig ( wrote:
    > >> So to make forward progress I'd like the audio people to confirm whether
    > >> the mlock bits in 2.6.9+ do help that half of their requirement first
    > >
    > > It sure should, but I guess they can reply on that.
    > That does seem to work now (finally). It looks like that longstanding
    > CAP_IPC_LOCK bug is finally fixed, too.
    > I find it hard to understand why some of you think PAM is an adequate
    > solution.

    The best we can do _here_ is present something that userspace can use
    sensibly. We can't make userspace actually use it that way though.

    Rlimits are neither UID/GID or PAM-specific. They fit well within
    the general model of UNIX security, extending an existing mechanism
    rather than adding a completely new one. That PAM happens to be the
    way rlimits are usually administered may be unfortunate, yes, but it
    doesn't mean that rlimits is the wrong way.

    > Running `nice --20' is still significantly worse than SCHED_FIFO, but
    > not the unmitigated disaster shown in the middle column. But, this
    > improved performance is still not adequate for audio work. The worst
    > delay was absurdly long (~1/2 sec).

    Let's work on that. It'd be _far_ better to have unprivileged near-RT
    capability everywhere without potential scheduling DoS.

    Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.030 / U:13.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site