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
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.
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list