It was <2015-04-30 czw 11:12>, when Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 30.04.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach: >> Regardless, of initrd issues I feel there is a need of a local IPC >> that is more capable than UDS. Linus Torvalds is probably right that >> dbus-daemon is everything but effictient. I disagree, however, that >> it can be optimised and therefore solve *all* issues kdbus is trying >> to address. dbus-deamon, by design, can't some things. It can't >> transmitt large payloads without copying them. It can't be made >> race-free. > > This is true. > But as long dbus-deamon is not optimized as much as possible there is > no reason to force push kdbus. > As soon dbus-deamon exploits all kernel interfaces as much it can and > it still needs work (may it performance or other stuff) we can think > of new kernel features which can help dbus-deamon.
I may not be well informed about kernel interfaces, but there are some use cases no dbus-daemon optimisation can make work properly because of rece-conditons introduced by the user-space based message router. For example, a service can't aquire credentials of a client process that actually sent a request (it can, but it can't trust them). The service can't be protected by LSM on a bus that is driven by dbus-daemon. Yes, dbus-daemon, can check client's and srevice's labels and enforce a policy but it is going to be the daemon and not the LSM code in the kernel. -- Łukasz Stelmach Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature