Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753413AbbDUNsm (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:48:42 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53532 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750937AbbDUNsl (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:48:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:48:36 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Olivier Galibert Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Richard Weinberger , David Herrmann , Linus Torvalds , Steven Rostedt , One Thousand Gnomes , Jiri Kosina , Al Viro , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , Tom Gundersen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Mack , Djalal Harouni Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 Message-ID: <20150421134836.GA9895@kroah.com> References: <20150420205638.GA3015@kroah.com> <55356CC1.1040301@nod.at> <20150420214651.GA4215@kroah.com> <20150421103128.GA4870@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2094 Lines: 45 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:18:35PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > Bringing up SCM_RIGHTS means that this is not going to be a bus system > > at all. One principal design goal is to _not_ have peer-to-peer > > connections between all communicating parties, but rather one connection > > to a central component. If that component is not in the kernel, it has > > to be a userspace deamon, which in turn has all of the issues that > > dbus-daemon currently has. > > You're not making sense there. If there is no daemon, then you're > peer-to-peer, because there's no central component. The kernel is the central component, as implemented in the patches. > If you consider the kernel the central component, then peer-to-peer is > almost impossible by definition. Um, no, they go through the kernel for that model as well, same interface, it just depends on the type of message that you are sending as to who the recipients are (single or more than one.) > It seems that almost everybody here thinks that the plumbing (e.g. > transmitting messages in-order with multicasting) should be separated > from the policy (who communicates with who), possibly leveraging the > packet filtering infrastructure to implement the decided policy. What > it is you reject about that point of view, which seems relatively > normal when you think about building a collection of useful tools? The plumbing is "separated" from the policy in that they are different data structures, but you have to have the policy in order to know who to connect with whom, otherwise it just doesn't work. How would packet filtering work here for this type of decision making? That's a much more complex interface than what we have implemented, don't you agree? thanks, greg k-h -- 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/