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:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:20:19 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	"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, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:25:55PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> dbus is not an appropriate design for a kernel messaging layer for a
> variety of reasons. That's not to say dbus shouldn't be able to use a
> fast kernel messaging layer, or that one shouldn't exist.
> 
> dbus is basically a very large very specialized and somewhat flawed
> policy engine on top of what should be simple messaging. The two need
> splitting apart.
> 
> Abstract low level messaging layers are not a new concept. V7 unix had
> one experimentally. It's about getting the separation right.
> 
> IMHO that probably involves getting the right people in the right place
> together - dbus designers, MPI and realtime people, kernel folks and
> possibly also some of the hardware messaging folk.
> 
> In filesystem terms
> 
> - stop writing a dbus only file system
> - figure out what a messaging "vfs" looks like
> - figure out what an clean low level kernel model looks like
> - figure out what has to be where to put the policy in userspace
> 
> What might also be worth review is how much dbus traffic actually ought to
> be an object store implemented say with tmpfs and inotify type
> functionality (or extensions of that) so that you can
> set/read/enumerate/get change notifications on properties.

FWIW, this sounds really sane and makes a lot of sense to me. I'd be
willing to give it some review cycles, as far as I can, when done this
way.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/