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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1504211255110.3695@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:03:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> > We do need something for the multicast messaging. Whether that's
> > supporting AF_LOCAL, SOCK_RDP with multicast or something else (POSIX
> > message queue extensions ?). There's no real IP layer reliable ordered
> > multicast delivery system that is low latency and lightweight because
> > once it hits real networks it changes from a hard problem into a
> > seriously hard problem because of multicast implosions and the like.
> 
> This was attempted in the past with AF_DBUS, but the networking
> maintainers rightfully pointed out that the model there did not work.

BTW, I don't think this has been brought up in this discussion yet ... 
please correct me if I am wrong, my memory is very faint here (*), but 
wasn't the main objection to AF_BUS that defining what happens when one of 
the subscribed receivers disconnects is a policy matter, and as such 
belongs to userspace (which wasn't the case with the submitted AF_BUS 
implementation)?

Was that considered unfixable and AF_BUS consequently given up because of 
this?

I personally think that AF_BUS makes quite a lot of sense -- it builds on 
what we already have (AF_UNIX credential passing, memfd sealing, etc), it 
basically "just implements a missing socket semantics" (wrt. reliability 
and multicasting).

(*) and I really would like to avoid the digging out and reading thread 
    similar to this one, about AF_BUS, again

Thanks,

-- 
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/