Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:02:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tchicks@us.ibm.com, tshighla@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] eCryptfs: Netlink functions for public key
Message-Id: <20060828130237.23d965aa.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060825191837.GA3122@us.ibm.com>
References: <20060824181722.GA17658@us.ibm.com>
	<20060824181831.GB17658@us.ibm.com>
	<20060824205419.c3894612.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060825191837.GA3122@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1081
Lines: 23

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:18:37 -0500
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > - _why_ does it use netlink?
> 
> Netlink provides the transport mechanism that would minimize the
> complexity of the implementation, given that we can have multiple
> daemons (one per user). I explored the possibility of using relayfs,
> but that would involve having to introduce control channels and a
> protocol for creating and tearing down channels for the daemons. We do
> not have to worry about any of that with netlink.

I'd have thought that a more appropriate communication mechanism would be
something which uses a file descriptor: a pipe, or a /dev node or whatever.

That way, the endpoints are more tightly defined and the
daemon-didnt-send-quit problem gets solved.  In fact, the quit message
might become unneeded: just use close()?
-
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/