Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

[Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

Am 30.04.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach:
>> Sorry, I thought you mean the races while collecting metadata in userspace...
> 
> My bad, some reace conditions *are* associated with collecting metadata
> but ont all. It is impossible (correct me if I am wrong) to implement
> reliable die-on-idle with dbus-daemon.

IIRC Andy gave some ideas howto deal with that.
i.e. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/29/622

>>> AF_UNIX with multicast support wouldn't be AF_UNIX anymore.
>>>
>>> AF_BUS? I haven't followed the discussion back then. Why do you think it
>>> is better than kdbus?
>>
>> Please see https://lwn.net/Articles/641278/
> 
> Thanks. If I understand correctly, the author suggests using EBPF on a
> receiveing socket side for receiving multicast messages. This is nice if
> you care about introducing (or not) (too?) much of new code. However,
> AFAICT it may be more computationally complex than Bloom filters because
> you need to run EBPF on every receiving socket instead of getting a list
> of a few of them to copy data to. Of course for small number of
> receivers the "constant" cost of running the Bloom filter may be higher.

To make the story short, the kdbus *concept* needs much more
thought. There are many ideas out there howto deal with dbus issues without introducing
an ad-hoc solution. AF_BUS is just one of them.
IMHO AF_BUS would be nice but the decision is not up to me.

Thanks,
//richard


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]