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:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:54:54 -0300
From:	Diego Viola <diego.viola@...il.com>
To:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	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>, 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

I'd like to see D-Bus in the kernel (kdbus), if that's going to make
D-Bus faster.

See this application taking 15 seconds to start just because D-Bus is too slow.

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342682

Hopefully kdbus solves problems such as this one.

Diego

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
<ahferroin7@...il.com> wrote:
> On 2015-04-14 15:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:23:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I agree.  You've sent a pull request for an unfortunate design.  I
>>>>> don't think that unfortunate design belongs in the kernel.  If it says
>>>>> in userspace, then user programmers could potentially fix it some day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might not like the design, but it is a valid design.  Again, we
>>>> don't refuse to support hardware that is designed badly.  Or support
>>>> protocols we don't necessarily like, that's not the job of a kernel or
>>>> operating system.
>>>
>>>
>>> And no, "the sole consumer of that API knows better, so bend over" is not
>>> a good idea.  We have shitloads of examples when single-consumer APIs
>>> turned into screaming horrors; taking that in over the objections to API
>>> design, merely on "they do it that way, who the hell we are to say they
>>> are wrong?" is insane.
>>
>>
>> Again, in this domain, the design is sound.  So much so that everyone
>> who works in that area moved toward it (KDE, Qt, Go, etc.)  We might not
>> think it makes sense, and it did take me a while to wrap my head around
>> it, but to call it "crap" is unfair, sorry.
>>
>
> The reason that 'everyone who works in this area' adopted is not as much
> that the design is sound (I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't in this
> case) as it is that none of them could come up with anything better.
>
--
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/