>
> FWIW, one working assumption so far was that the admin takes care that
each
> application which uses a session has an unique identifier.

As I mentioned yesterday in a different thread, this assumption is not so
bad if you have the luxury of designing the complete system with connman in
mind.  However, I have a situation where the connman is being added late
and the customer does not find this assumption as palatable.  They have
written apps and have a specific working architecture in place.  Creating a
session with some tag might be an easier sell than having the customer
force apps onto a new process/uid/gid/etc. This is where my proposal for
the CreateSession to pass an optional tag/uid so sessions can be created by
proxy.  This would actually be no different than the concept Android is
using for the download manager--as I understand it from the qtaguid
discussion.

Tysen


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 11/08/2013 08:48 AM, Patrik Flykt wrote:
>
>> So it would appear the *last* session that is created will effectively
>>> mark (and clobber) the first marking for the packet (0x101 mark
>>> clobbers the earlier 0x100 mark since it's last in the chain). I hope
>>> this is *not* what was intended.
>>>
>>
>> ...in the other thread means there is a bug. If the same policy matches
>> the other session, no duplicate netfilter rules must be inserted, and
>> especially not in a way where the previous marking is overwritten. But
>> do notice that ConnMan must set up two separate Sessions, one for each
>> process (as currently) as both processes have asked to be notified
>> (separately). It's the netfilter rules that need to be set up only once.
>>
>> Bug, needs fixing.
>>
>
> FWIW, one working assumption so far was that the admin takes care that each
> application which uses a session has an unique identifier.
>
> cheers,
> daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> connman mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
>
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman

Reply via email to