From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 29 14:17:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA13504 for current-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hda.hda.com (hda-bicnet.bicnet.net [208.220.66.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13498 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA28302 for current@freebsd.org; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:31:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <199707292031.QAA28302@hda.hda.com> Subject: where to put access restriction for scheduling classes To: current@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:31:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm looking at switching from a pseudo device that sets a sysctl variable to something more mainstream to control access to sched_setscheduler. Can someone in the know explain the right thing to do - I don't want to create a new resource, so is the right thing a sysctl variable that somehow gets set during login via login_class while still root? Which of those are inherited per-process? Or do I actually add a resource and only change the login stuff? Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Safety critical systems, Agency approval