lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:08 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    > 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?

    Nothing's wrong with using fd's. They're just a very poor API.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-10-27 17:41    [W:3.315 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site