Hi Jussi, >>> Now that we're talking about the online check... I've talked to people >>> who considered this behaviour "calling home" and thought it >>> unreasonable that >>> a) it's not possible to prevent the online check from happening via >>> configuration and >> >> >> Why would you prevent it to happen? This check is something extra anyway, >> being "ready" means you are connected. In a way, people should not care too >> much not seeing there service being set to "online", since such check can't >> be bullet-proof. > > It's not about connman functionality at all. It's (as an example) > about people building a super secret embedded product demo on top of > Yocto suddenly realizing that their device is connecting to a web > server they don't control or even know about (aka "who is this Marcel > Holtmann why is our IOT Fridge fetching web pages from him?")
if this super secret fridge is connected to the Internet and can actually reach it, then it is no longer super secret. If you would be really worried, then you would have it locked up in a lab with no access to anything. And even if it would be calling the ConnMan servers, nobody in the world could tell super secret fridge apart from someone sitting next to it using ConnMan on Yocto on a Minnowboard or its laptop. I can not repeat this enough. This whole think is designed with full anonymity in mind. We are building our own HTTP request for exactly that reason. No headers can sneak in. No unwanted meta data can leak. ConnMan ships its own HTTP client for a reason. Think about this for a second. You can leak more information by using a distro libcurl by accident that includes some meta headers. If ConnMan's online check is your concern, then you do not understand privacy at all. > FWIW, I totally understand the point Patrik makes in the previous discussion: >> If the URL is configurable, upstream >> does not have the means to fix online related bug reports as we'd be >> unable to confirm the online checking service to work properly in the >> first place. In the worst case even the URL accessed is not known, not >> even to the person submitting the bug report. > > This is a compelling argument as well -- I'm not in favor of making > this too easy. I do think there are legitimate use cases where people > do not want to rely on Marcel (or Intel) handling their online checks. > > Since the required patches are not big (as shown by Pasi, thanks!) > just adding clear documentation to Yocto about the online check > Connman makes and instructions on how to modify it may be a sufficient > alternative. If someone wants to add documentation on what ConnMan is doing, then I am all for it. More documentation is always good. I am in favor of full transparency. I am however not in favor of giving such an option. If someone wants to shoot themselves into the foot, then they can pick up the gun by themselves. I do not see a good reason why would make this easy. And honestly I prefer them carrying an extra patch changing the defines in the source code. That means they have to carry that extra patch. So every time it breaks, they get a nice reminder that something might have changed. So they have a change in catching it. The config file is to easy to forget. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
