Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

From: Peter Williams
Date: Fri Feb 04 2005 - 17:30:05 EST


Jack O'Quin wrote:
Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:


Paul Davis wrote:

There are several kernel-side attributes that would make JACK better
from my perspective:
* better ways to acquire and release RT scheduling

I'm no expert on the topic but it would seem to me that the mechanisms
associated with the capable() function are intended to provide a
consistent and extensible interface to the control of privileged
operations with possible finer grained control than "root 'yes' and
everybody else 'no'". Maybe the way to solve this problem is to
modify the interpretation of capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) so that it returns
true when invoked by a task setuid to a nominated uid in addition to
zero?


That is essentially what the RT-LSM does. At exec() time RT-LSM turns
on CAP_SYS_NICE for appropriate process images.

In the current implementation this is only done per-group not
per-user. Adding UID as well as GID granularity should be easy. We
didn't do it because we didn't really need it. If there's a use for
it, I have no objection to adding it. It could even compatibly be
added later.

If what you have is adequate I wouldn't suggest changing it. My use of uid in my rant was just to illustrate a general idea.


Many distributions require users to join group `audio' anyway to gain
access to the sound card. We found it convenient to piggy-back on
that mechanism.

I believe Paul considers this adequate for his requirements. :-)

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/