Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:23:01 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Realtime LSM |
| |
* Lee Revell (rlrevell@joe-job.com) wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 00:05, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > The ulimit approach is way too cumbersome. > > Agreed. The whole point of getting realtime-lsm in the kernel is to > make it _easier_ to get a linux audio (or other realtime system) up and > running.
It's nice to have something that's easy to use, but that's not a great justification for addition to the kernel. Esp. when there's a functional userspace solution.
> Would it be feasible to use rlimits to let users run > SCHED_FIFO processes?
No, it doesn't support that. I suppose it could, whether is should is another matter.
> The ulimit approach would probably be acceptable > if it subsumed all the functionality of the realtime-lsm module.
Hrm, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The whole point of the mlock rlimits code is to enable this policy to be pushed to userspace. A generic method of enabling capabilities is the best way to go, long term. Any interest in pursuing that?
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
| |