Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-02-16 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:34 +0100, Timothy Hobbs wrote: > Obviously, this question reveals my total ignorance of pulseaudio > architecture, but why are you implementing access control in pulseaudio > itself, rather than using a firewall wrapper that parses the info being > sent down the pulse

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-02-15 Thread Timothy Hobbs
Obviously, this question reveals my total ignorance of pulseaudio architecture, but why are you implementing access control in pulseaudio itself, rather than using a firewall wrapper that parses the info being sent down the pulse audio socket and only lets allowed RPC calls through? On

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-02-15 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 13:28 +0100, Wim Taymans wrote: > On 13 February 2017 at 13:58, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:15 +0100, Wim Taymans wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I think (1) is quite ugly and requires you to modify many functions > > > with a new

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-02-14 Thread Wim Taymans
On 13 February 2017 at 13:58, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:15 +0100, Wim Taymans wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I think (1) is quite ugly and requires you to modify many functions >> with a new parameter that >> is not at all related to what the function does. > > I

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-02-13 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:15 +0100, Wim Taymans wrote: > Hi All, > > I took another look at the access control patches. > > There was a desire from Arun and Tanu to have the access control > checks more integrated > into the core objects instead of just some checks in the native protocol. I

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-01-28 Thread Ahmed S. Darwish
Hi! On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:15:29PM +0100, Wim Taymans wrote: > Hi All, > > I took another look at the access control patches. > Thanks a lot for resuming the original work on this; didn't have the time here :-) > There was a desire from Arun and Tanu to have the access control > checks

[pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2017-01-27 Thread Wim Taymans
Hi All, I took another look at the access control patches. There was a desire from Arun and Tanu to have the access control checks more integrated into the core objects instead of just some checks in the native protocol. I was a bit reluctant to start this because it would involve passing

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2016-07-18 Thread David Henningsson
On 2016-07-15 11:43, Wim Taymans wrote: On 15 July 2016 at 11:14, David Henningsson > wrote: On 2016-07-15 11:05, Wim Taymans wrote: Hi guys, I'm having another look at the access control patches. I revived my old

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2016-07-15 Thread Wim Taymans
On 15 July 2016 at 11:14, David Henningsson wrote: > > > On 2016-07-15 11:05, Wim Taymans wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I'm having another look at the access control patches. I revived my old >> patches and found some trouble with the async stuff that I fixed here: >> >>

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2016-07-15 Thread David Henningsson
On 2016-07-15 11:05, Wim Taymans wrote: Hi guys, I'm having another look at the access control patches. I revived my old patches and found some trouble with the async stuff that I fixed here: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~wtay/pulseaudio/log/?h=access-hooks

[pulseaudio-discuss] Access control

2016-07-15 Thread Wim Taymans
Hi guys, I'm having another look at the access control patches. I revived my old patches and found some trouble with the async stuff that I fixed here: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~wtay/pulseaudio/log/?h=access-hooks There is also an example on how to start and complete an async access check