Re: [PATCH] Realtime LSM

Chris Wright
2004-10-01T21:33:02Z

* 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