Re: [PATCH] Realtime LSM

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

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 17:23, Chris Wright wrote:
> * 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.
> 

OK, poor choice of words.  Correctness of course comes before ease of
use.  I believe the realtime-lsm module satisfies both requirements.

> > 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.

Lee