Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753413AbaJ0N4V (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:56:21 -0400 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:49542 "EHLO relay6-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753117AbaJ0N4S (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:56:18 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 83.155.44.161 Message-ID: <1414418126.30379.47.camel@hadess.net> Subject: Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist From: Bastien Nocera To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:55:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5446B3CC.1080904@amacapital.net> References: <1413881397.30379.7.camel@hadess.net> <5446B3CC.1080904@amacapital.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7 (3.12.7-1.fc21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > Why are overlays better than, say, btrfs > lightweight copies here? Also, overlayfs might actually make it for 3.19. Overlayfs works on more than just btrfs, which is useful to not rely on a particular filesystem to implement those features. > As for childfs, I implemented procfs polling a couple years ago, but it > never went anywhere: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1840e47fc4113af16989a4250d98bed62a9bce53.1354559528.git.luto@amacapital.net > > If that would help, I can try to dust it off and get it in to the kernel. I'll pass that on to Ryan who requested this feature. Cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/