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]

Message-ID: <49b7c2350906191826j646133b3y4df000ad49501407@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:26:47 +0900
From:	GeunSik Lim <leemgs1@...il.com>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.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

2009/6/20 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>:
>>
>> Did Google evaluate DBus at all?
>
> Some of our user-space code have in the past used or still use dbus,
> but as far as I know it has not been seriously considered as a
> replacement for the binder.
>
>> Also are there any userspace test cases
>> that Google used to test the performance of this interface. Or test
>> cases to compare the binder with something like sockets, or any other
>> type of IPC?
>>
>> If Google believes the binder is the right solution for IPC, how was
>> that conclusion formed?
>>
>> Daniel
>
> These are mostly questions for the framework team. The binder driver
> is there to support our user space code. At some point we used the
> driver from www.open-binder.org, but we ran into, and fixed, a lot of
> bugs (especially when processes died), so we determined it would be
> faster to rewrite the driver from scratch.
Ok, The binder driver is there to support our user space code as you explained.
Currently, Android platform selected both binder and Dbus for IPC mecanism as
http://blogfiles13.naver.net/data44/2009/6/20/108/binder-dbus-android-invain.png
and
android bluetooth architecture
diagram(http://sites.google.com/a/android.com/opensource/projects/bluetooth-faq).

Why did Google select  the two mechanism(both Binder and Dbus) for IPC
in androd software stack?
And, What is differenece about major roles  between Binder and Dbus in
Android OpenSource Project(AOSOP)?

* Binder as IPC
- http://www.open-binder.org
-Don't worry about processes or IPC  Because of distributed architecture.
-Provides resource management between processes.
-Handle on an object in another proces. ( lightweight sharing between
processes ???)
-Powerful facilities for doing multithreaded programming with the Binder.

* Dbus as IPC
- http://www.freedesktop.org/software/dbus/
- System for sending messages between applications. (Systemwide
message-bus service) -
- For example , Broadcast signal  and System/Session Bus for tasks in
Application Framework.


-- 
Regards,
GeunSik Lim ( Samsung Electronics )
Blog : http://blog.naver.com/invain/
e-Mail: geunsik.lim@...sung.com
           leemgs@...il.com , leemgs1@...il.com
--
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/
--
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/