On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 11:15 +0200, José Bollo wrote: > On mer, 2014-05-14 at 10:33 +0300, Kis, Zoltan wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > (snip) > > > > 4. Cynara called by dbus-daemon, based on service configuration. > > > > > > The advantage of option 4 over 3 is that we don't need to touch the many > > > entry points into upstream services. However, it depends on Cynara > > > behaving well inside the dbus-daemon event loop - blocking synchronous > > > calls definitely will be a showstopper there. It also won't work well > > > with kdbus. > > > > In my view (may be wrong and I expect security people to correct me) > > we may be able to solve that. > > IIRC, this solution wasn't already debated. > > IMHO, this solution is costly: time to do it, time to maintain it, time > to make it accepted upstream, dependency of DBus to cynara, the > configuration process isn't obvious.
On the other hand, it only needs to be done once, and probably is more secure than relying on D-Bus service implementers to do the right thing in their code. > It also have the drawback to be DBus specific, letting part of the world > outside of the scope. True, non-D-Bus still needs a solution. But that is a separate issue. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
