Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:28:54PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> Sure, for broadcasts, we have to walk the list of peers connected to the
> bus and see which one is interested in a particular message. We do that
And this "... we have to walk the list ..." right there raises the
alarm. Can this
Hi,
On 04/24/2015 11:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:02:52PM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
>>>
>>> Ok,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:02:52PM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> >> No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
> >
> > Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:45:15AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
> > > > of
Am Freitag, 24. April 2015, 08:45:15 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same
> > > > amount
> > >
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
> > > of work all the time.
> >
> > The same *pile* of unnecessary and needless
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
> > of work all the time.
>
> The same *pile* of unnecessary and needless work. You go and collect
> *all* that data on *every* packet send?!
No, not at
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
of work all the time.
The same *pile* of unnecessary and needless work. You go and collect
*all* that data on *every* packet send?!
No, not at all, the
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
of work all the time.
The same *pile* of unnecessary and needless work. You go
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:02:52PM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use
Hi,
On 04/24/2015 11:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:02:52PM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Ok,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:45:15AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same amount
of work all
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:28:54PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
Sure, for broadcasts, we have to walk the list of peers connected to the
bus and see which one is interested in a particular message. We do that
And this ... we have to walk the list ... right there raises the
alarm. Can this
Hi,
On 04/24/2015 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:28:54PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
Sure, for broadcasts, we have to walk the list of peers connected to the
bus and see which one is interested in a particular message. We do that
And this ... we have to walk the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:33:19PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Yeah, that's absolutely correct.
I think Boris wanted to say that iterating over all hash buckets
can be costly.
You are thinking of 'k' (the constant), where you usually have k*O(1), where
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Skalski l.skal...@samsung.com wrote:
- client: http://fpaste.org/215156/
Cool - it might also be interesting to try this without blocking round
trips, i.e. send requests as quickly as you can, and collect replies
asynchronously. That's how people ideally
Hi All,
On 04/23/2015 07:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
- There's still an open performance question. Namely: is kdbus performant?
Yes, I thought that was already answered. Tizen posted some numbers
with a much older
On 04/24/2015 04:19 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Skalski l.skal...@samsung.com wrote:
- client: http://fpaste.org/215156/
Cool - it might also be interesting to try this without blocking round
trips, i.e. send requests as quickly as you can, and
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:34:34PM +0200, Lukasz Skalski wrote:
On 04/24/2015 04:19 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Skalski l.skal...@samsung.com
wrote:
- client: http://fpaste.org/215156/
Cool - it might also be interesting to try this without
Am Freitag, 24. April 2015, 08:45:15 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:36:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hm, this seems to be to be O(1), pretty constant, we do the same
amount
of work all
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
>
> Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying
> to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and then
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:30:13PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:42:25PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
> > > have here works for their
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Objection 2: There's a difference between the printer daemon knowing
>> that Angry Penguins has general permission to print and an explicit
>> assertion by Angry Penguins of its
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying
to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and then following the
chain in each bucket per packet broadcast looks like a
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
>>> show the complexity of a
Hi
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
>> show the complexity of a function, so this really is almost always the
>> same amount of
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Objection 1: This thing is omnidirectional. I'm much less convinced
> that it's okay for Angry Penguins or its associated ad network to find
> out that the printer daemon is uid 38, that it's in cgroup
> such-and-such, or that the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
> show the complexity of a function, so this really is almost always the
> same amount of time, based on using the hash function.
This is iterating over 256
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Selinux can and, I believe, often does prevent this.
>
> Ok, then the LSM patches for kdbus should be able to also mediate this
> as well if needed.
No Greg.
Just remove the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> Doing access control based on comm and cmdline is horrid, I totally
> agree. But right now, any process in the system can read any other
> process's comm and cmdline value out of /proc today.
You have to work extra hard for it, and
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> Same goes for uid etc - if you are implementing a service daemon, the
>> uid of the requester sure as hell makes a ton of difference in what
>> you might want to expose.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2015 11:56 AM, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If somebody is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:42:25PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
> > have here works for their model as well, so I guess that is some kind of
> > verification it's not
On Apr 23, 2015 11:56 AM, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if it's "lpr"
> > > or "firefox
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:29:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > And the code that transfers the meta-data is wrong.
> >
> > It is generally not something that userspace requires today, certainly
> > userspace is not using
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 08:33:47PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > Did I miss anything else here? Are there any technical reasons I'm
> > forgetting about for why this can't be pulled in as-is for this merge
> > window?
>
>
Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:03:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> The following changes since commit 9eccca0843205f87c00404b663188b88eb248051:
>>
>> Linux 4.0-rc3 (2015-03-08 16:09:09 -0700)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if it's "lpr"
> > or "firefox http://horses.and.trannyporn.my.little.pony.com/; that
> > does the printing.
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Same goes for uid etc - if you are implementing a service daemon, the
> uid of the requester sure as hell makes a ton of difference in what
> you might want to expose. Things like "does this user have access
> rights to the printer?" are
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> Did I miss anything else here? Are there any technical reasons I'm
> forgetting about for why this can't be pulled in as-is for this merge
> window?
Maybe I get again accused of ``being a jerk'' but I still dare to ask about
Boris'
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if it's "lpr"
> or "firefox http://horses.and.trannyporn.my.little.pony.com/; that
> does the printing.
And btw, it's not just "this is information that shouldn't be logged".
It's
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>>
>> - starttime, cmdline, and possibly other pieces of metadata are also
>> problematic. I think starttime is especially bad because it both
>> breaks CRIU and is IMO completely unnecessary -- I sent out draft
>> "highpid" patches a
On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
> have here works for their model as well, so I guess that is some kind of
> verification it's not entirely tied to D-Bus. They have plans on
> dropping the existing binder
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Andy's concerns
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>
> >> Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
> >> multiple threads
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
>> multiple threads here. The kernel code isn't buggy as-designed or
>> implemented from what
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
> multiple threads here. The kernel code isn't buggy as-designed or
> implemented from what we can all tell, it's just that the new
> functionality isn't
> Alan, and others, want a tiny, generic, multi-cast IPC method that also
> works across networks. They feel that this is something that D-Bus
I never said - across networks. And locally it has been done, even
microcontrollers have done it.
> Lots of people have said they want something like
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:03:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> The following changes since commit 9eccca0843205f87c00404b663188b88eb248051:
>
> Linux 4.0-rc3 (2015-03-08 16:09:09 -0700)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Did I miss anything else here? Are there any technical reasons I'm
forgetting about for why this can't be pulled in as-is for this merge
window?
Maybe I get again accused of ``being a jerk'' but I still
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
- starttime, cmdline, and possibly other pieces of metadata are also
problematic. I think starttime is especially bad because it both
breaks CRIU and is IMO completely unnecessary -- I sent out draft
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
multiple threads here. The kernel code isn't buggy as-designed or
implemented from what we can all tell, it's just that the new
functionality isn't liked by
On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
have here works for their model as well, so I guess that is some kind of
verification it's not entirely tied to D-Bus. They have plans on
dropping the existing binder
Alan, and others, want a tiny, generic, multi-cast IPC method that also
works across networks. They feel that this is something that D-Bus
I never said - across networks. And locally it has been done, even
microcontrollers have done it.
Lots of people have said they want something like this
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
multiple threads here. The kernel code isn't buggy as-designed or
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Andy's concerns about the capability stuff has been hashed out in
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Greg
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Doing access control based on comm and cmdline is horrid, I totally
agree. But right now, any process in the system can read any other
process's comm and cmdline value out of /proc today.
You have to work
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Apr 23, 2015 11:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:42:25PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
have here works for their model as well, so I guess that is some kind of
verification it's not entirely
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if it's lpr
or firefox http://horses.and.trannyporn.my.little.pony.com/; that
does
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:03:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
The following changes since commit 9eccca0843205f87c00404b663188b88eb248051:
Linux 4.0-rc3 (2015-03-08 16:09:09 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 08:33:47PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Did I miss anything else here? Are there any technical reasons I'm
forgetting about for why this can't be pulled in as-is for this merge
On Apr 23, 2015 11:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Same goes for uid etc - if you are implementing a service daemon, the
uid of the requester sure as hell makes a ton of
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
show the complexity of a function, so this really is almost always the
same amount of time, based on using the hash function.
This is iterating over 256 hash
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Objection 2: There's a difference between the printer daemon knowing
that Angry Penguins has general permission to print and an
Hi
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
show the complexity of a function, so this really is almost always the
same amount
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
I don't know what O(256) means here, O notation usually is used to
show
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Selinux can and, I believe, often does prevent this.
Ok, then the LSM patches for kdbus should be able to also mediate this
as well if needed.
No
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Objection 1: This thing is omnidirectional. I'm much less convinced
that it's okay for Angry Penguins or its associated ad network to find
out that the printer daemon is uid 38, that it's in cgroup
such-and-such, or
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying
to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and then following the
chain in each bucket per packet broadcast looks like a
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
If somebody is printing something, it shouldn't matter if it's lpr
or firefox http://horses.and.trannyporn.my.little.pony.com/; that
does the printing.
And btw, it's not just this is information that
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Same goes for uid etc - if you are implementing a service daemon, the
uid of the requester sure as hell makes a ton of difference in what
you might want to expose. Things like does this user have access
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:29:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
And the code that transfers the meta-data is wrong.
It is generally not something that userspace requires today, certainly
userspace is not using it.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:03:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
The following changes since commit 9eccca0843205f87c00404b663188b88eb248051:
Linux 4.0-rc3 (2015-03-08 16:09:09 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying
to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:30:13PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:42:25PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
The binder developers at Samsung have stated that the implementation we
have here works for their model as
On Apr 22, 2015 7:57 AM, "Michal Hocko" wrote:
>
> On Tue 21-04-15 11:11:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>
On Tue 21-04-15 11:11:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > On Tue 21-04-15 12:17:49, David Herrmann wrote:
> >> >> Hi
>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 09:37:44AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> I think the pressure to use dbus happens for several reasons, if you
> use a side channel some example complaints people have are:
>
> * you have to reinvent any dbus solutions for security policy,
> containerization,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:29:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> And the code that transfers the meta-data is wrong.
>
> It is generally not something that userspace requires today, certainly
> userspace is not using it.
>
> You are exporting a weird set of information in a unique way that
On Tue 21-04-15 11:11:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue 21-04-15 12:17:49, David Herrmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 09:37:44AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
I think the pressure to use dbus happens for several reasons, if you
use a side channel some example complaints people have are:
* you have to reinvent any dbus solutions for security policy,
containerization, debugging,
On Apr 22, 2015 7:57 AM, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue 21-04-15 11:11:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:29:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
And the code that transfers the meta-data is wrong.
It is generally not something that userspace requires today, certainly
userspace is not using it.
You are exporting a weird set of information in a unique way that makes
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch
wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> On Die, 2015-04-21 at 09:37 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> [...]
>> This has long been sort of the 'party line' and I've told many people
>> this on the dbus mailing list over the years (almost exactly what you
>> just said
Hi all!
On Die, 2015-04-21 at 09:37 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
[...]
> This has long been sort of the 'party line' and I've told many people
> this on the dbus mailing list over the years (almost exactly what you
> just said - that for performance-critical cases they should open a
> direct
On 2015-04-21 15:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36:54AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
HeHeHe. You mean all I need to do to get around all of the logging servers is
capture CAP_SYS_BOOT? Say like just capture this crazy watchdog program
that doesn't run as root so
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36:54AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> HeHeHe. You mean all I need to do to get around all of the logging servers is
> capture CAP_SYS_BOOT? Say like just capture this crazy watchdog program
> that doesn't run as root so that it can only reboot the system? HeHeHe
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/20/2015 08:01 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 16:27 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
>>> Do you have ideas on how to go about fixing it, whether in userspace
>>> or kernel dbus?
>>
>> Well, I've always
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 03:06:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:16:49PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> >> Greg,
>> >>
>> >> Am
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 21-04-15 12:17:49, David Herrmann wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:35 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. It might not even be a
problem with D-bus, and it's probably a timeout issue as you said.
I'll give kdbus a try anyway and report back.
Thanks,
Diego
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:54:54PM
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:54:54PM -0300, Diego Viola wrote:
> I'd like to see D-Bus in the kernel (kdbus), if that's going to make
> D-Bus faster.
>
> See this application taking 15 seconds to start just because D-Bus is too
> slow.
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342682
>
>
I'd like to see D-Bus in the kernel (kdbus), if that's going to make
D-Bus faster.
See this application taking 15 seconds to start just because D-Bus is too slow.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342682
Hopefully kdbus solves problems such as this one.
Diego
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:59
Tom Gundersen writes:
> Moreover, the daemon performing the shutdown tasks is necessarily
> always privileged enough to do so, so calling into the kernel and see
> what happens is completely the wrong thing to do (it would simply
> succeed). What matters is if the client calling the daemon is
>
> Um, no, they go through the kernel for that model as well, same
> interface, it just depends on the type of message that you are sending
> as to who the recipients are (single or more than one.)
In other words its bog standard classic network layer multicasting. You
don't need much policy for
Hi
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > If for nothing else then the memcg reasons mentioned in
>> > other email (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=142953380508188). If
On Tue 21-04-15 16:01:01, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 21-04-15 12:17:49, David Herrmann wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:35 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On top of that, I think that someone into
201 - 300 of 698 matches
Mail list logo
