Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

[Alex Elsayed]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> This is why I think kdbus is a bad idea: it solidifies as a linux kernel
>> API something which runs counter to granular OS virtualization (and
>> something which caused Windows to fall behind Linux in the container
>> space).  Splitting out the acceleration problem and leaving the rest to
>> user space currently looks fine because the ideas Al and Andy are
>> kicking around don't cause problems with OS virtualization.
>>
> 
> I'm interested in understanding this problem (if only for my own
> curiosity) but I'm not confident I understand what you're saying
> correctly.
> 
> Can I try to explain back / ask questions and see what I have right?
> 
> I think you are saying that if an application relies on a system
> service (= any other process that runs on the system bus) then to
> virtualize that app by itself in a dedicated container, the system bus
> and the system service need to also be in the container. So the
> container ends up with a bunch of stuff in it beyond only the
> application.  Right / wrong / confused?
> 
> I also think you're saying that userspace dbus has the same issue
> (this isn't a userspace vs. kernel thing per se), the objection to
> kdbus is that it makes this issue more solidified / harder to fix?
> 
> Do you have ideas on how to go about fixing it, whether in userspace
> or kernel dbus?
> 
> Havoc

So far as I understand (and this may be wrong), this is the use case of 
kdbus "endpoints" - you'd create a (constrained) kdbus endpoint on the host, 
and then expose it to the application, such that the application uses it as 
if it were the system bus.

--
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/