[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1504151406210.26287@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:09:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc: 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>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 'systemctl reboot' calls a bunch of other things to determine if you
> have local access to the machine, or permissions to reboot the machine
> (i.e. CAP_SYS_BOOT), and other things that polkit might allow you to do,
> and then, it decides to reboot or not. That happens today, right? I
> don't understand the argument here.
And what exactly is the argument that this is the way it should be
implemnted?
Why can't it just rely on the kernel to provide final answer to "to reboot
or not to reboot, that is the question"?
At the end of the day, it's the kernel that decides whether it will really
ultimately ask the platform to reboot.
If, for whatever reason (which might be completely invisible to userspace)
kernel decides not to do so, userspace has to be able to recover from such
failure in any case.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists