Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:21:17 -0800 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM |
| |
* Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:54:05PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > Note that sched_setschedule() provides no way to handle the mlock() > > requirement, which cannot be done from another process. > > I'm pretty sure that part can be done by a privileged server handing > out mlocked shared memory segments.
It can actually be done with plain ol' rlimits (RLIMIT_MEMLOCK).
> The trouble with introducing something into the kernel is that once > done, it can't be undone. So you're absolutely going to meet > resistance to anything that can be a) done sufficiently in userspace > or b) can reasonably be done in a more generic manner so as to meet > the needs of a wider future audience. The onus is on the submitter to > meet these requirements because we can't easily kick out a broken API > after we accept it.
Indeed (although in this case it's not adding an API as much as using an existing one).
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/
| |