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

Chris Wright
2005-01-11T22:23:37Z

* Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:42:51PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > But I'm also still not convinced this policy can't be most flexibly
> > > handled by a setuid helper together with the mlock rlimit.
> >
> > Wait, why can't it be done with (to date fictitious) pam_prio, which
> > simply calls sched_setscheduler? It's already privileged while it's
> > doing these things...
>
> You certainly do not want to run everything at RT from login on.
> That'd be bad.

Yup, true.

> Also, tying to UIDs rather than (UID, executable) is worrisome as
> random_game_with_audio in Gnome might decide it needs RT, much to the
> admin's surprise.

Hmm, well, the pam_limit approach has that problem.

thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net