Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754854AbbGJQUn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:20:43 -0400 Received: from smtp107.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([98.139.244.55]:27809 "EHLO smtp107.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753740AbbGJQUe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:20:34 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: _hfr8PIVM1mPeuN0ometZLCq2J1F.wWy7RozfoE_aYTt3QK 9X0sQMHxgNWhpZIlwXN8xLs9QPf73bDRmXA1ch.PdZIimjrATO9gZCpV__hK BQG1mcvs8Vb4Ilw7zatTpLGdHopEw9a_Ko5EpGBZD4Jo1JeOHjnikcmBbLE5 ezdzVKwrdFFwGYD7ggN2f1twDvrmQTA_JT2S144MVKUsPZjqoFytVhQPwKWZ fGHs56WCoBN2GSTrNE280DW2NYD8QUanJvx5cIDerRxN7ZKgA9GSiZlWKKWS L3yuSpA5j7fspHYB4Jt1Tc4rdz4GX6fJghggSTBlNbkFEAZHpikt27b8Ch8P 7qyX4.o69gizp4oTBKvs2xre.6Fmzf3R_ErYiQZUijmVGLioW79Vn8saZFTo u79IKVjym.aJhrHw9zLE_7yHvLm4xQRhU2iTaXdXdg4k81tUfUfWnq4CTRz6 bQpGE7s.ApQL9UlPWV7iIt8UKXU1G93gI2xR4rxl3kKbno3U5MO7d.Xe.z4O _7N_JoUxX4TUqFQMq1VttR.0yhJJwzQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: OIJXglSswBDfgLtXluJ6wiAYv6_cnw-- Message-ID: <559FF0D0.30209@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:20:32 -0700 From: Casey Schaufler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Elsayed , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kdbus: credential faking References: <559EBCC0.7040604@tycho.nsa.gov> <559FC7DD.8060507@tycho.nsa.gov> <559FDB04.2010805@tycho.nsa.gov> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3458 Lines: 67 On 7/10/2015 7:57 AM, Alex Elsayed wrote: > Stephen Smalley wrote: > >> On 07/10/2015 09:43 AM, David Herrmann wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Stephen Smalley >>> wrote: >>>> On 07/09/2015 06:22 PM, David Herrmann wrote: >>>>> To be clear, faking metadata has one use-case, and one use-case only: >>>>> dbus1 compatibility >>>>> >>>>> In dbus1, clients connect to a unix-socket placed in the file-system >>>>> hierarchy. To avoid breaking ABI for old clients, we support a >>>>> unix-kdbus proxy. This proxy is called systemd-bus-proxyd. It is >>>>> spawned once for each bus we proxy and simply remarshals messages from >>>>> the client to kdbus and vice versa. >>>> Is this truly necessary? Can't the distributions just update the client >>>> side libraries to use kdbus if enabled and be done with it? Doesn't >>>> this proxy undo many of the benefits of using kdbus in the first place? >>> We need binary compatibility to dbus1. There're millions of >>> applications and language bindings with dbus1 compiled in, which we >>> cannot suddenly break. >> So, are you saying that there are many applications that statically link >> the dbus1 library implementation (thus the distributions can't just push >> an updated shared library that switches from using the socket to using >> kdbus), and that many of these applications are third party applications >> not packaged by the distributions (thus the distributions cannot just do >> a mass rebuild to update these applications too)? Otherwise, I would >> think that the use of a socket would just be an implementation detail >> and you would be free to change it without affecting dbus1 library ABI >> compatibility. > Honestly? Yes. To bring up two examples off the bat, IIRC both Haskell and > Java have independent *implementations* of the dbus1 protocol, not reusing > the reference library at all - Haskell isn't technically statically linked, > but its ABI hashing stuff means it's the next best thing, and both it and > Java are often managed outside the PM because for various reasons (in the > case of Haskell, lots of tiny packages with lots of frequent releases make > packagers cry until they find a way of automating it). There is absolutely no reason to expect that these two examples don't have native kdbus implementations in the works already. That's the risk you take when you eschew the "standard" libraries. Further, the primary reason that developers deviate from the norm is (you guessed it!) performance. The proxy is going to kill (or at least be assumed to kill) that advantage, putting even more pressure on these deviant applications to provide native kdbus versions. Backward compatibility shims/libraries/proxies only work when it's the rare and unimportant case requiring it. If it's the common case, it won't work. If it's the important case, it won't work. If kdbus is worth the effort, make the effort. > > > > -- > 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/ > -- 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/