Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

[John Stoffel]

>>>>> "Austin" == Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Austin> On 2015-04-29 14:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2015 5:48 AM, "Harald Hoyer" <harald@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> * Being in the kernel closes a lot of races which can't be fixed with
>>> the current userspace solutions.  For example, with kdbus, there is a
>>> way a client can disconnect from a bus, but do so only if no further
>>> messages present in its queue, which is crucial for implementing
>>> race-free "exit-on-idle" services
>> 
>> This can be implemented in userspace.
>> 
>> Client to dbus daemon: may I exit now?
>> Dbus daemon to client: yes (and no more messages) or no
>> 

Austin> Depending on how this is implemented, there would be a
Austin> potential issue if a message arrived for the client after the
Austin> daemon told it it could exit, but before it finished shutdown,
Austin> in which case the message might get lost.

What makes anyone think they can guarrantee that a message is even
received?  I could see the daemon sending the message and the client
getting a segfault and dumping core.  What then?  How would kdbus
solve this type of "race" anyway? 

Can anyone give a concrete example of one of the races that are closed
here?  That's been one of the missing examples.  And remember, there's
no perfection.  Even in the kernel we just had a discussion about
missed/missing IPIs and lost processor interrupts, etc.  Expecting
perfection is just asking for trouble.  

That's why there are timeouts, retries and just giving up and throwing
an exception.  

John
--
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/