[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5537AABE.9010506@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:05:50 -0400
From: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: Issues with capability bits and meta-data in kdbus
On 2015-04-22 09:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 07:40:25AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> On 2015-04-21 22:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If kdbus were a general purpose IPC tool
>>>
>>> .. but it's not ..
>>>
>>
>> Except, IIRC, that was one of the stated design goals in the original patch
>> set. I'm pretty sure that i remember a rather verbose exposition that
>> pretty much could be summarized as "Linux has no general purpose IPC in the
>> kernel, this fixes that"
>
> Did I say that somewhere? Here's what the patchset has always started
> with every time I have posted it for review, starting back last year in
> October:
>
> kdbus is a kernel-level IPC implementation that aims for
> resemblance to the the protocol layer with the existing
> userspace D-Bus daemon while enabling some features that
> couldn't be implemented before in userspace.
>
> 2+ years ago, I had the dream that maybe we could make kdbus into the
> "general purpose IPC layer for the kernel", but in working through all
> of the issues, and the requirements of the userspace users and
> protocols, it just really didn't work out that way, sorry.
>
I think it may have been someone else elaborating on this ideal that I
was remembering. Personally, I could care less whether it is considered
'general purpose', as far as I'm concerned, POSIX semaphores, shm, and
UDS fit all the IPC I ever need. On that note, I have considered trying
to implement SOCK_SEQPACKET support for AF_LOCAL, although I've gotten
by just fine using SCTP over the loop-back interface.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (2967 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists