Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:28:36AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. April 2015, 11:02:12 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> > > > > And yes, I think its good not to force just about any userspace
> > > > > idea
> > > > > into the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any technical objections to the patch as proposed?
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > If I had, I would have written it. I explained already that I see
> > > that 
> > > kernel developers have strong technical objections with kdbus. And
> > > that I  think it is important to acknowledge it, instead of telling
> > > them, that the API is required from userspace, userspace people know
> > > what they do, and they should just go away with their concerns.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Thats at least how I received quite some of your responses.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Well and I raised an eyebrow on the busname matching rules and the 
> > > capability stuff. Yet, I didn´t comment on it, cause I didn´t look at
> > > it  in-depth. I just ask you to take those seriously who did.
> > 
> > I take technical comments very seriously, where have I not?  If you have
> > technical reasons why the current implementation has problems, please
> > let me know, and I will be glad to address them.
> 
> >From what I read you basically answered all technical comments like in:
> 
> The dbus API is like it is for a very good reason, everyone is using it 
> and everyone agrees. Capabilities are used in userspace for good reason 
> and so on.
> 
> But I see, here, not everyone does. 
> 
> Most of your answers didn´t seem to address the concerns raised of having 
> this in the *kernel*. Especially the security concerns.

I have responded to the security concerns, please don't say that I did not.

> Thats what I meant with "And yes, I think its good not to force just about 
> any userspace into the kernel". I think arguing with this is how userspace 
> does it pattern, even if it truly is for a very good reason, is not 
> sufficient as argument for having it in the kernel.
> 
> I am just looking at the argumentative pattern here. If other kernel 
> developers complain about how hard it is to review and wrap their mind 
> around the kdbus patches… I am scared at just trying to understand the 
> patches. So no technical complaints from me. I did not nack it nor do I 
> see myself in the position to nack it.

Please take the time to read it, 13k lines isn't much.  To not read the
code and yet complain about the code is total nonsense.

greg k-h