Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:08:17 -0700 | Subject | Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist |
| |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 08:12 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2014 6:56 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <hadess@hadess.net> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 12:28 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > > On 10/21/2014 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> > > > Hey, >> > > > >> > > > GNOME has had discussions with kernel developers in the past, and, >> > > > fortunately, in some cases we were able to make headway. >> > > > >> > > > There are however a number of items that we still don't have solutions >> > > > for, items that kernel developers might not realise we'd like to rely >> > > > on, or don't know that we'd make use of if merged. >> > > > >> > > > I've posted this list at: >> > > > https://wiki.gnome.org/BastienNocera/KernelWishlist >> > > > >> > > > Let me know on-list or off-list if you have any comments about those, so >> > > > I can update the list. >> > > >> > > I don't know much about desktop environment infrastructure, but I think >> > > the kernel probably already has a lot of what's needed for LinuxApps. >> > > >> > > Tools like Sandstorm [1] (shameless plug, but it's a good example here) >> > > can already sandbox normal-ish programs, and those sandboxes can be >> > > launched without privilege [2]. >> > > >> > > Why is kdbus needed? >> > >> > Because it sucks less than passing fd's and using home-made protocols on >> > top of it. >> >> For securely communicating with a container, "it sucks less" is hard >> to use as a design criterion. > > Sucking less is a requirement when it comes to being able to use it. At > the very least, when it comes to security, the fact that the protocol > can be captured and analysed in wireshark is already of great help to > inspect what each component of the system is doing. More so than passing > fd's and using a custom protocol on the server and client sides. > >> What's wrong with fds, and how does kdbus solve it? > > By having a well-known protocol and defined semantics on top of that > communication channel. I could try and re-explain why kdbus is needed, > but I wouldn't do as good a job as the people working on it, so best to > refer to the individual threads about kdbus on this list. >
I didn't do a good job asking the question, then.
What's wrong with fds in the context of communicating with a container? What does kdbus do container-wise that helps?
--Andy
| |