Re: AF_BUS socket address family

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:13:50 -0400
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:42:30AM +0100, Vincent Sanders wrote:
> > The current users are suffering from the issues outlined in my
> > introductory mail all the time. These issues are caused by emulating an
> > IPC system over AF_UNIX in userspace.
> 
> Nothing in your introductory statements indicate how your requirements 
> can't be met through a hybrid socket + shared memory solution.  The IPC 
> facilities of the kernel are already quite rich, and sufficient for 
> building many kinds of complex systems.  What's so different about DBus' 
> requirements?

dbus wants to
- multicast
- pass file handles
- never lose an event
- be fast
- have a security model

The security model makes a shared memory hack impractical, the file
handle passing means at least some of it needs to be AF_UNIX. The event
loss handling/speed argue for putting it in kernel.

I'm not convinced AF_BUS entirely sorts this either. In particular the
failure case dbus currently has to handle for not losing events allows it
to identify who in a "group" has jammed the bus by not listening (eg by
locking up). This information appears to be lost in the AF_BUS case and
that's slightly catastrophic for error recovery.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/