Right now I see a couple of services like murphyd and connman on the bus... But automotive-message-broker (ambd) isn't able to get on the bus because of a "permission denied" issue. If I have kdbus running correctly, should I be seeing that some services are running or should all services fail?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Karol Lewandowski <[email protected]> wrote: > (OP from private address here.) > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:56:42 -0800, Rees, Kevron wrote: > >> FYI, while trying to gbs build the kdbus-bus from the kdbus-integration >> branch I get: >> >> error: Invalid upstream treeish upstream/0.5 >> >> Looks like we are missing a tag. > > Interesting. It didn't fail for me as I didn't have upstream > branch checked out at all. > > I could add this tag, but there is no such thing as upstream's > version 0.5 (or any other). What we have is just git sha1. > > I could create upstream/gitXXXXXX tag, and (possibly) use this > as a version. That would be better on one hand, but on the > other it would make package version not monotonically increasing. > > I could create upstream/0.5tizen.gitXXXXXX but that looks like > overkill. > > I went thru wiki pages and I'm still not sure how this should > be handled. > > (IOW, right now to compile module locally it should be enough > to "git branch -d upstream") > >> Also, any idea what it will take to get dbus services to work on ivi >> images? > > In theory these should "just work" thanks to transparent > dbus1-kdbus proxy as provided by systemd-bus-proxyd. > > Practice is quite different with many services segfaulting, > including bus-proxyd itself. > > We will start looking into these issues, fixing one by one, > starting from next monday. > > Please also take into account what Casey wrote - currently > kdbus offers no security at all, and it will take some time > before this changes. > > > Thanks! > Karol > >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Clark, Joel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/24/2014 Karol Lewandowski wrote: >>>>On 01/24/2014 12:02 PM, Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Le 22/01/14 20:38, Karol Lewandowski a écrit : >>>>> To be a viable solution, kdbus will need to land in kernel official >>>>> release in a workable model (inclusing smack support). >>>> >>>>Is it really the case? In tizen we are carrying quite a few patches >>>>that weren't integrated into upstream projects. Our whole security >>>>model depends on this (upstream dbus-daemon doesn't >support smack if >>>>I'm not mistaken). >>> >>> It is certainly true for Tizen IVI for IA. We usually have 0 out of >>> tree kernel patches. Maintaining out of tree kernel patches is too >>> resource intensive. >>> >>> Regards Joel Clark >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list [email protected] >>> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
