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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
>>
>>
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo