Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:20:19 -0800 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM |
| |
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:12:59AM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> writes: > > > * Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org) 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 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/
| |