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

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

On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:47 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Lee Revell (rlrevell@joe-job.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:05 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > Anyway, *plonk*.
> > 
> > Plonk?  WTF?  Jack comes up with what many people think is a reasonable
> > solution to a real problem, that affects thousands of users, and in the
> > middle of what seems to me a civilized discussion, you killfile him
> > because he disagrees with you?
> > 
> > Plonk to you too, asshole.
> 
> Guys, could we please bring this back to a useful discussion.  None of
> you have commented on whether the rlimits for priority are useful.  As I
> said before, I've no real problem with the module as it stands since it's
> tiny, quite contained, and does something people need.  But I agree it'd
> be better to find something that's workable as long term solution.

Chris, I did comment on it, see
1105222442.24592.126.camel@krustophenia.net from around 5:15 on
Saturday.

from the above message:

Eh, PAM is a perfectly fine solution.  Documentation is lacking, but
it's easy to find examples.  On my system /etc/security/limits.conf has
this sample config, commented out:

#<domain>      <type>  <item>         <value>
#

#*               soft    core            0
#*               hard    rss             10000
#@student        hard    nproc           20
#@faculty        soft    nproc           20
#@faculty        hard    nproc           50
#ftp             hard    nproc           0

So add your audio users (or cdrecord users, or whoever) to group
realtime and add:

realtime        hard    memlock 100000
realtime        soft    prio    100

Problem solved.

Lee