linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

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:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:27:27 -0400
From:	Havoc Pennington <hp@...ox.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> This is why I think kdbus is a bad idea: it solidifies as a linux kernel
> API something which runs counter to granular OS virtualization (and
> something which caused Windows to fall behind Linux in the container
> space).  Splitting out the acceleration problem and leaving the rest to
> user space currently looks fine because the ideas Al and Andy are
> kicking around don't cause problems with OS virtualization.
>

I'm interested in understanding this problem (if only for my own
curiosity) but I'm not confident I understand what you're saying
correctly.

Can I try to explain back / ask questions and see what I have right?

I think you are saying that if an application relies on a system
service (= any other process that runs on the system bus) then to
virtualize that app by itself in a dedicated container, the system bus
and the system service need to also be in the container. So the
container ends up with a bunch of stuff in it beyond only the
application.  Right / wrong / confused?

I also think you're saying that userspace dbus has the same issue
(this isn't a userspace vs. kernel thing per se), the objection to
kdbus is that it makes this issue more solidified / harder to fix?

Do you have ideas on how to go about fixing it, whether in userspace
or kernel dbus?

Havoc
--
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/