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

[Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>]

* Matt Mackall (mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:54:05PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > Note that sched_setschedule() provides no way to handle the mlock()
> > requirement, which cannot be done from another process.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that part can be done by a privileged server handing
> out mlocked shared memory segments.

It can actually be done with plain ol' rlimits (RLIMIT_MEMLOCK).

> The trouble with introducing something into the kernel is that once
> done, it can't be undone. So you're absolutely going to meet
> resistance to anything that can be a) done sufficiently in userspace
> or b) can reasonably be done in a more generic manner so as to meet
> the needs of a wider future audience. The onus is on the submitter to
> meet these requirements because we can't easily kick out a broken API
> after we accept it.

Indeed (although in this case it's not adding an API as much as using an
existing one).

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/