Re: [Agnula-Developers] [ demudi-Feature Requests-723 ] Compile Muse 0.6.3 with givertcap support
On 2 Mar 2004, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>
> I see your point, Guenter.
>
> It was for similar reasons that I initially focused on the LSM
> approach before spending time on the kernel patch. For a long time to
> come that will be the preferred approach, and I want to make sure it
> works well.
Now the big caveat is, that we have to ask the kernel maintainer to
compile the kernel with security modules, and that building modules
external to the kernel is not that easy with the new kernel build system.
Have to investigate ...
Guenter
>
> guenter geiger <geiger@xdv.org> writes:
>
> > My main concern is, if it is worth the effort. The module solution for
> > 2.6 is a lot easier to integrate into Debian. Very clean, separate
> > package, only care has to be taken that it is available for all kernel
> > flavours.
>
> AFAIK, the LSM has no CPU dependencies. But, it has probably only
> been tested on x86 so far.
>
> If there are still Debian platforms that don't run 2.6 or can't
> support the SELinux LSM hooks, they will be a problem.
>
> > Then eventually, everyone just wants to use 2.6 in the very near future.
> > So if there are only small drawbacks in terms of lowlatency behaviour, I
> > would prefer the 2.6 solution.
>
> For those needing turn-key support for realtime multimedia, I think
> the 2.6 solution will work fine. The latency now seems to be good
> enough on most machines for most purposes.
>
> Those wanting to squeeze out an extra millisecond or two still have
> the option of building their own kernels. Today, getting lowlatency
> with 2.4 normally requires familiarity with kernel building and
> patching. Even if an additional realtime patch were provided, it need
> not be built into the standard Debian kernel images. Those who apply
> low-latency patches already, could easily apply this patch too, it
> they want it.
> --
> joq
>
Reply to: