linux-kernel - Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist

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: <CALCETrWQ5r39aqP+MFZuD__5HiNAc+cDQoghsDSEc9oVsmsyvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:12:26 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist

On Oct 27, 2014 6:56 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <hadess@...ess.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 12:28 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On 10/21/2014 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > GNOME has had discussions with kernel developers in the past, and,
> > > fortunately, in some cases we were able to make headway.
> > >
> > > There are however a number of items that we still don't have solutions
> > > for, items that kernel developers might not realise we'd like to rely
> > > on, or don't know that we'd make use of if merged.
> > >
> > > I've posted this list at:
> > > https://wiki.gnome.org/BastienNocera/KernelWishlist
> > >
> > > Let me know on-list or off-list if you have any comments about those, so
> > > I can update the list.
> >
> > I don't know much about desktop environment infrastructure, but I think
> > the kernel probably already has a lot of what's needed for LinuxApps.
> >
> > Tools like Sandstorm [1] (shameless plug, but it's a good example here)
> > can already sandbox normal-ish programs, and those sandboxes can be
> > launched without privilege [2].
> >
> > Why is kdbus needed?
>
> Because it sucks less than passing fd's and using home-made protocols on
> top of it.

For securely communicating with a container, "it sucks less" is hard
to use as a design criterion.

What's wrong with fds, and how does kdbus solve it?

--Andy
--
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/