linux-kernel - Re: Why not make kdbus use CUSE?

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:	Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:31:27 -0500
From:	Richard Yao <ryao@...too.org>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why not make kdbus use CUSE?

On 12/01/2014 09:23 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> told quite plainly that such distributions are not worth consideration. If kdbus
>> is merged despite concerns about security and backward compatibility, could we
>> at least have the shim moved to libc netural place, like Linus' tree?
> 
> I would expect any other libc would fork the shim anyway (or just not
> bother with systemd in most cases).

If the shim were in glibc, then that would be reasonable, but the shim
is in systemd. That would make the systemd developers the gate keepers
ta kernel interface. If we are going to enforce Linus' stable API
policy, then the shim should be in a repository that has a track record
for interface stability, which the systemd developers simply do not
have. It was not that long ago that firmware loading was moved into the
kernel because they had caused problems. I do not think that the systemd
developers are the correct ones to assume stewardship over such code. If
kdbus is merged, I think the best situation would be to move it into
Linus' tree.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (885 bytes)