* Peter Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I think Chris Wright's last rlimit patch is more sensible and ready to > >>go. > > > > > >I must say that I like rlimits - very straightforward, although somewhat > >awkward to use from userspace due to shortsighted shell design. > > > >Does anyone have serious objections to this approach? > > I don't object to rlimits per se and I think that they are useful but > not as a sole solution to this problem. Being able to give a task > preferential treatment is a permissions issue and should be solved as one. > > Having RT cpu usage limits on tasks is a useful tool to have when > granting normal users the privilege of running tasks as RT tasks so that > you can limit the damage that they can do BUT the presence of a limit on > a task is not a very good criterion for granting that privilege. > > The granting of the ability to switch to and from RT mode should require > a means to specify which users it applies to and also which programs it > applies to. The RT rlimits mechanism doesn't meet these criteria. > > In summary, IMHO you should put them both in but modify the RT rlimits > patch so that it plays no part in the decision as to whether the task is > allowed to run as RT or not.
I'm not sure I follow you. This patch just sets the max RT priority a process can have (defaults to 0, as w/out the patch). Increasing that value is a form of permission granting, giving the process the ability to increase its RT prio if it chooses to ask for it. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
