Thank you all for sorting this out. It seems like we are moving in a really good direction. > I agree. We can have just two modes for the beginning: > a) full one (useful for testing) > b) buffer only (allow just sound data mmap) The full one is would also be used by the HAL for querying the DSP position. > if we should use different names (like anon_inode:snd-pcm and anon_inode:snd-pcm-buffer) That would be helpful. I have attached a revised requirements doc. The original doc was more of a HowTo for OEMs to create the "anon_inode:dmabuf" FD.. This clarifies the requirements and allows for the use of "anon_inode:snd-pcm*". It should match what we have arrived at by discussion. Let me know if it makes sense. Thanks, Phil Burk On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 5:01 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:55:24AM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > I agree. We can have just two modes for the beginning: > > > a) full one (useful for testing) > > b) buffer only (allow just sound data mmap) > > > The question, if we should use different names (line anon_inode:snd-pcm > > and anon_inode:snd-pcm-buffer) for the anonymous inodes remains. I > > believe it might be good to distinguish this to allow the proper SELinux > > audit. > > I agree that the separte names seems better, it gives more flexibility > and control to people writing policies. >
Attachment:
RequirementsSecureMMapFileDescriptor.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
