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

[Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>]

* Matt Mackall (mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Guys, could we please bring this back to a useful discussion.  None of
> > you have commented on whether the rlimits for priority are useful.  As I
> > said before, I've no real problem with the module as it stands since it's
> > tiny, quite contained, and does something people need.  But I agree it'd
> > be better to find something that's workable as long term solution.
> 
> I almost like it. I don't like that it exposes the internal scheduler
> priorities directly (-tiny in fact has options to change these!). So
> perhaps some thought could be given to either stratifying it a bit
> more (>2000 for SCHED_FIFO, >1000 for SCHED_RR, then SCHED_OTHER) or
> separate limits for the different scheduling disciplines. 

Yeah, I don't like that either (thought I mentioned it in earliest
patch).  I thought about the method you mentioned, but didn't like it
much better.  I also suggested using 0 == default, 1 == can nice down,
2 == can set RT prio.  Utz suggests just splitting nice limit from rt
limit.

> 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...

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/