Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
I am Linux developer. My priority is Linux.
That's nice, but most of us developers don't have the luxury of being
able to forget about portability. I've spent quite a bit of effort
packaging software for other free operating systems, and there's
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 00:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
this offers an API of
two tiny functions.
And rtkit is just a tiny piece of software that only requires minimal
additions to client code to be useful.
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 02:09:36 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Doing authorization via groups is broken,
What??? Did you ever do administration for more then one computer???
Authorization by groups is _the only_ way to go if
On Mon, 22.06.09 08:52, Adam Sampson (a...@offog.org) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
I am Linux developer. My priority is Linux.
That's nice, but most of us developers don't have the luxury of being
able to forget about portability. I've spent quite a bit of effort
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
There's something wrong here.
There is a lot wrong here.
* Question: is the 'demoting' of RT-threads applied only to RT
threads granted by this daeomon, or does it apply to all, including
those created by processes running as root ? In
On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Planet
CCRMA) are the rt patched kernels, currently limited to 2.6.29.5 (I
think Thomas and the rt gang are working on 2.6.30, I imagine 2.6.31
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
Also, the client reference implementation is tiny. it just wraps two
method calls. Trivial stuff.
You're referring here to the code at
http://git.0pointer.de/?p=rtkit.git;a=blob;f=rtkit.c ? That's not
trivial. I
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Fons Adriaensenf...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
* Why should an app running on an headless system at RL3 be forced
to go through a collection of desktop-oriented daemons in order to
do something that amounts to a simple POSIX system call ?
I do think this is a
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
There's something wrong here.
There is a lot wrong here.
* Question: is the 'demoting' of RT-threads applied only to RT
threads granted by this daeomon, or
On Sun, 21.06.09 21:02, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
The distinction between a thread/clone() and a process/fork() bomb
doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can kill() processes
and
Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
Really, I see not much value in supporting more than one kernel.
I find this statement surprising, having found that testing on multiple
operating systems is an excellent way of finding subtle bugs in code.
(I assume you're just talking about
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
FUD, FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. And FUD.
Sounds like our prime minister: Communists ! Communists !
Communists !. His standard answer to all critics. Even
the Financial Times is communist.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre:
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:53, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
What exactly are you asking for as user-space infrastructure? Some
easy to reach UI that will allow you to make yourself a member of some
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
privileges to every process on the machine. However, it makes it
possible to prevent
Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
A novice user would install well-known binaries from the distros
repository. The binary runs as user 'rt-audio'
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 17:58 +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
privileges to every
On Mon, 22.06.09 19:59, Jens M Andreasen (jens.andrea...@comhem.se) wrote:
Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
A novice user would install
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:18 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
But uh, that app could then not access the starting user's file in any
way.
Of course it could! ... :-/
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:58:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
My point being that if you use that word you'd better know
what it means.
Mark Vitek schrieb:
Don't set CPPFLAGS or anything like it in Makefile.am. These are set in
confingure.ac http://confingure.ac. Also, there's rules about
which ones the user sets and which one
the build system sets. E.g. I think CFLAGS is reserved for the
build
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 16:42, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
As a user doing critical audio, say, in a concert situation, I'd require
that my computer's realtime audio tasks can use 99.9% of the cpu for
short amounts of time. I don't care if the
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
you gave it to him, and also adding a seperate group for every tiny
bit you need to authorize access to doesn't scale.
security
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
at them during work is by definition not an rt user.
rt users must be
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:35, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
you gave it to him, and also adding a
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
at them during work is by definition not an
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
solution for hardcore rt users?
rtkit is not for you!
Let me repeat this:
RTKIT IS NOT FOR YOU!
this is getting
On Mon, 22.06.09 18:00, drew Roberts (z...@100jamz.com) wrote:
Here is a small bit of an attempt at being constructive.
I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
enabling
RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
though) What
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 17:37:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
The amount of constructive criticism in this thread is next
to zero, nobody even bothers to read the README before just fudding
around.
I am one of those who also haven't
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
fdo-haters, dbus-haters, who apparently believe I am out to take away
their freedom to
On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
fdo-haters,
On Monday 22 June 2009 23:35:57 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
some daemon fiddling with rt privs at
runtime in my book qualifies as drowning the child first, then throwing
it out. maybe eating it afterwards, but i'm not sure.
Yippie! We are back at the child eating stage!
/me gets out the
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:18 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 12:51, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
Good question.
Why is it resetting all the default, even processes
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:08 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
enabling
RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
though)
Lennart Poettering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current system is too binary: Either
you have RT sched and then for *everything*. Or you haven't, and then
you haven't got it for *anything*.
But isn't this more to do with the missing userspace support infrastructure
that numerous people
On Mon, 22.06.09 16:33, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
If rtkit would demote all processes when triggered, regardless of whether
rtkit granted the privileges or not then I can't really bypass it, it is
always there defining policy.
Except that rtkit wouldn't be
On Tue, 23.06.09 01:38, Dennis Schulmeister (linux-audio-...@windows3.de) wrote:
So after reading all those messages I'm somewhat left up wondering if
the addressed problem (real-time audio for desktop applications) really
is an existing problem. The same goes for the theoretical threat of a
Hi,
thanks for your help but I'm already with waf now. Builds fine although
I haven't tested the binaries. Was wondering why I mustn't tell waf
about any libraries.
It's very easy and fast to learn although I didn't know anything about
python I'm not even sure what a preprocessor does.
Hey guys,
let me just try and be constructive here...
as far as I understand, RLIMIT_RTPRIO was decided as a solution about three
years ago, but lacks a userspace interface.
From the post below, I understand that there is already a small app made by
Jonathan Woithe that helps out in this
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:22 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
You are misunderstanding what I was saying: either a process is
SCHED_RR/FIFO or it is not. That's a binary thing. Either you get the
full RT powers, or no RT
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 03:54 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
Dennis Schulmeister linux-audio-...@windows3.de writes:
audio performance has always been fine for typical desktop usage
without rt privileges me thinks. Because the issue of latency is
relative in that case. But maybe I'm missing an
42 matches
Mail list logo
