Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist

Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-27T16:08:43Z

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 08:12 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2014 6:56 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <hadess@hadess.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 12:28 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > On 10/21/2014 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > > > Hey,
>> > > >
>> > > > GNOME has had discussions with kernel developers in the past, and,
>> > > > fortunately, in some cases we were able to make headway.
>> > > >
>> > > > There are however a number of items that we still don't have solutions
>> > > > for, items that kernel developers might not realise we'd like to rely
>> > > > on, or don't know that we'd make use of if merged.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've posted this list at:
>> > > > https://wiki.gnome.org/BastienNocera/KernelWishlist
>> > > >
>> > > > Let me know on-list or off-list if you have any comments about those, so
>> > > > I can update the list.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know much about desktop environment infrastructure, but I think
>> > > the kernel probably already has a lot of what's needed for LinuxApps.
>> > >
>> > > Tools like Sandstorm [1] (shameless plug, but it's a good example here)
>> > > can already sandbox normal-ish programs, and those sandboxes can be
>> > > launched without privilege [2].
>> > >
>> > > Why is kdbus needed?
>> >
>> > Because it sucks less than passing fd's and using home-made protocols on
>> > top of it.
>>
>> For securely communicating with a container, "it sucks less" is hard
>> to use as a design criterion.
>
> Sucking less is a requirement when it comes to being able to use it. At
> the very least, when it comes to security, the fact that the protocol
> can be captured and analysed in wireshark is already of great help to
> inspect what each component of the system is doing. More so than passing
> fd's and using a custom protocol on the server and client sides.
>
>> What's wrong with fds, and how does kdbus solve it?
>
> By having a well-known protocol and defined semantics on top of that
> communication channel. I could try and re-explain why kdbus is needed,
> but I wouldn't do as good a job as the people working on it, so best to
> refer to the individual threads about kdbus on this list.
>

I didn't do a good job asking the question, then.

What's wrong with fds in the context of communicating with a
container? What does kdbus do container-wise that helps?

--Andy