* Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i'm wondering, couldnt Jackd solve this whole issue completely in
> > user-space, via a simple setuid-root wrapper app that does nothing else
> > but validates whether the user is in the 'jackd' group and then keeps a
> > pipe open to to the real jackd process which it forks off, deprivileges
> > and exec()s? Then unprivileged jackd could request RT-priority changes
> > via that pipe in a straightforward way. Jack normally gets installed as
> > root/admin anyway, so it's not like this couldnt be done.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> Until recently, that didn't work because of the longstanding rlimits
> bug in mlockall(). For scheduling only, it might be possible.
>
> Of course, this violates your requirement that the user not be able to
> lock up the CPU for DoS. The jackd watchdog is not perfect.
there is a legitimate fear that if it's made "too easy" to acquire some
sort of SCHED_FIFO priority, that an "arm's race" would begin between
desktop apps, each trying to set themselves to SCHED_FIFO (or SCHED_ISO)
and advising users to 'raise the limit if they see delays' - just to get
snappier than the rest.
thus after a couple of years we'd end up with lots of desktop apps
running as SCHED_FIFO, and latency would go down the drain again.
(yeah, this feels like going back to the drawing board.)
Ingo
-
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/
