linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging: android: binder: Remove some funny && usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:49:38 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
Cc:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hackbod@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging: android: binder: Remove some funny &&
	usage

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:14 -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
> 
> I guess it depends on the questions -- for good or ill, it's what is
> in use and replacing it with a different mechanism would be a pretty
> huge effort that there's unlikely to be time for in the near future.
> Quite a bit of the userspace framework depends on the binder handling
> the remote reference counting, object lifespan, etc, stuff and it's
> subtle and hairy to debug.  Moving to a different transport is
> possible (it's just software, as they say), but there's a lot of code
> that depends on the behavior that exists today.

I'm really interested in how binder was picked. It seems like a dead
technology (hasn't been touched in 3 years according to open-binder.org)

I think the best option is to write a layer over D-Bus that implements
the binder API. I don't think that would be too difficult since D-Bus
does IPC, binder does IPC, and the differences should be worked out with
a layer between the two. D-Bus seems like the best solution since it has
the best community backing..

> If the binder is absolutely unacceptable as something to be included
> in the linux kernel (that's a message that I seem to be getting here),
> I think the best thing for us to do is maintain it in our tree for now
> and focus on stuff that is far less controversial.

Yes... I'm refraining from doing more cleanups because it seems like a
lost cause. 

> For example the msm7k SoC code may need some various cleanup, but I
> think at the end of the day adding support for a new ARM based SoC and
> peripherals is not going to be that contentious.  The
> wakelock/suspendblock stuff is a bit further out there, but there
> seemed to be some good progress on getting it reviewed and revised on
> the linux-pm list, last I saw.

Do you have a msm branch someplace that is strictly msm support with
absolutely no generic changes mixed in?

The only thing in staging that is less controversial from my perspective
is ram_console.c that could actually be cleaned up and possibly merged.

Daniel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/