From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20141030144709.GA19721@kroah.com> References: <54520A21.20404@samsung.com> <54521697.1030900@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54521697.1030900-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Karol Lewandowski Cc: Jiri Kosina , Linux API , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, John Stultz , Arnd Bergmann , Tejun Heo , Ryan Lortie , Simon McVittie , daniel-cYrQPVfZoowdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, David Herrmann , Paul Moore , "casey.schaufler-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , marcel-kz+m5ild9QBg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, tixxdz-Umm1ozX2/EEdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, javier.martinez-ZGY8ohtN/8pPYcu2f3hruQ@public.gmane.org, alban.crequy-ZGY8ohtN/8pPYcu2f3hruQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:44:39AM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > [ Sorry for breaking thread and resend - gmane rejected my original message > due to too long list of recipients... ] > > On 2014-10-30 00:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > There is a 1815 line documentation file in this series, so we aren't > > trying to not provide this type of information here at all. But yes, > > more background, about why this can't be done in userspace (zero copy, > > less context switches, proper credential passing, timestamping, availble > > at early-boot, LSM hooks for security models to tie into > > While you're at it... I did some work on proof-of-concept LSM patches for > kdbus some time ago, see [1][2]. Currently, these are completely of date. > > [1] https://github.com/lmctl/linux/commits/kdbus-lsm-v4.for-systemd-v212 > [2] https://github.com/lmctl/kdbus/commit/aa0885489d19be92fa41c6f0a71df28763228a40 > > May I ask if you guys have your own plan for LSM or maybe it would be > worth to resurrect [1]? The core calls are already mediated by LSM today, right? We don't want anyone to be parsing the data stream through an LSM, that idea got rejected a long time ago as something that is really not a good idea. Other than that, I don't know exactly what your patches do, or why they are needed, care to go into details? thanks, greg k-h