Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 12:02 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 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.

For a big subsystem that exposes an API, you would be right.  But this
is a *really* simple problem, all you need is a way to tell it who gets
RT privileges, which means uid or gid.  So any future solution will be
orthogonal to this one, and when users upgrade even a not very smart
Perl script will be able to migrate the configuration.  How many
different ways are there to say "these are the non-root users who have
realtime prvileges", anyway?

Unless, of course, the solution that's eventually merged is *really*
overcomplicated by comparison, in which case users will (rightly) reject
it, and the system will have worked.

Lee