pulseaudio causing crashing of applications

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 13:54:15 UTC 2008

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:52:21PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> But why not just block any other access?  A tape drive wouldn't work 
> Because the device changes ownership

Traditional unix behavior is that open file descriptors stay open and 
working even if access permissions change.

>> well with 2 writers but unix systems can usually prevent that without 
>> breaking a running session because someone else logs in nearby.
> Different thing altogether.
> If a previos session could snoop your keystrokes, watch your desktop and
> borrow your bank card details you would be suprised and I suspect cross. Audio
> and video snooping via sound card/web camera is no different.

If something needs exclusive access, it should arrange for exclusive 
access and just not work until it can get it (i.e. politely wait its 
turn instead of rudely breaking a working process).  I can see where 
this might make sense on the VT keyboard since that device is 
necessarily shared during the procedure.  But it doesn't make any more 
sense to interrupt a running phone or music player session because 
someone else is temporarily using a certain keybord than it would to 
break a running tape backup for the same circumstance.  Or at least this 
should be left as an easily chosen local policy.

With controls based on ownership, can't root still do the snooping 
operations you are concerned about anyway?  Fedora is probably mostly 
used on machines with only a few users, so chances are that the owner of 
the first session being interrupted has root access anyway and could 
bypass the access restrictions the switch tries to impose.  Wouldn't it 
be better to kernel locking or some mechanism that can really ensure 
exclusive access for situations like a phone session?

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list