On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:34 +0100, Timothy Hobbs wrote: > Obviously, this question reveals my total ignorance of pulseaudio > architecture, but why are you implementing access control in pulseaudio > itself, rather than using a firewall wrapper that parses the info being > sent down the pulse audio socket and only lets allowed RPC calls through?
If by a "firewall wrapper" you mean a separate process, I don't see what benefit that would have. As far as I can see, it would just complicate things. If you meant an in-process firewall, the first approach that Wim tried was kind of like that. One of the reasons why it wasn't liked that much was that it only works for the native protocol, and pulseaudio supports several communication protocols. While the native protocol is the most important one, it's nice to have support for all protocols without having to duplicate the effort. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
