Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist

Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-27T15:12:49Z

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.

What's wrong with fds, and how does kdbus solve it?

--Andy