Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:03:59 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jiri Kosina <> | 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
| |