Re: [PATCH] Realtime LSM

Lee Revell
2004-10-01T22:35:52Z

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 18:27, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Lee Revell (rlrevell@joe-job.com) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 17:23, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > OK, poor choice of words. Correctness of course comes before ease of
> > use. I believe the realtime-lsm module satisfies both requirements.
>
> I agree with that. That's not my objection. It's about pushing code
> (albeit it's small and non-invasive) into the kernel that can be done in
> userspace, that's all.
>

How do you envision this working? I am sure it's possible, I think I am
just not seeing how it would be different in practice.

> > > > 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?
> >
> > I did not mean to imply that I disagree with the realtime-lsm approach.
> > Obviously some kernel support is required, and realtime-lsm seems to
> > solve the problem with the minimum possible change to the kernel. And
> > above all it is a proven working solution that has been field tested for
> > months by many, many users.
>
> Clearly it's useful for the audio folks. Whether it's the right thing
> to go into the kernel is all that's in question here. Do we agree it's
> a stopgap measure making up for lack of a better general solution?
>

See above, no argument here from me.

Lee