Am 30.04.2015 um 12:19 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach: > It was <2015-04-30 czw 11:12>, when Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 30.04.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach: >>> Regardless, of initrd issues I feel there is a need of a local IPC >>> that is more capable than UDS. Linus Torvalds is probably right that >>> dbus-daemon is everything but effictient. I disagree, however, that >>> it can be optimised and therefore solve *all* issues kdbus is trying >>> to address. dbus-deamon, by design, can't some things. It can't >>> transmitt large payloads without copying them. It can't be made >>> race-free. >> >> This is true. >> But as long dbus-deamon is not optimized as much as possible there is >> no reason to force push kdbus. >> As soon dbus-deamon exploits all kernel interfaces as much it can and >> it still needs work (may it performance or other stuff) we can think >> of new kernel features which can help dbus-deamon. > > I may not be well informed about kernel interfaces, but there are some > use cases no dbus-daemon optimisation can make work properly because of > rece-conditons introduced by the user-space based message router. > > For example, a service can't aquire credentials of a client process that > actually sent a request (it can, but it can't trust them). The service > can't be protected by LSM on a bus that is driven by dbus-daemon. Yes, > dbus-daemon, can check client's and srevice's labels and enforce a > policy but it is going to be the daemon and not the LSM code in the > kernel.
That's why I said we can think of new kernel features if they are needed. But they current sink or swim approach of kdbus folks is also not the solution. As I said, if dbus-daemon utilizes the kernel interface as much as possible we can think of new features. Thanks, //richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
