Re: [PATCH 01/13] kdbus: add documentation

[Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>]

Hi Andy,

On 02/02/2015 09:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2015 1:34 AM, "Daniel Mack" <daniel@zonque.org> wrote:

>> That's right, but again - if an application wants to gather this kind of
>> information about tasks it interacts with, it can do so today by looking
>> at /proc or similar sources. Desktop machines do exactly that already,
>> and the kernel code executed in such cases very much resembles that in
>> metadata.c, and is certainly not cheaper. kdbus just makes such
>> information more accessible when requested. Which information is
>> collected is defined by bit-masks on both the sender and the receiver
>> connection, and most applications will effectively only use a very
>> limited set by default if they go through one of the more high-level
>> libraries.
> 
> I should rephrase a bit.  Kdbus doesn't require use of send-time
> metadata.  It does, however, strongly encourage it, and it sounds like

On the kernel level, kdbus just *offers* that, just like sockets offer
SO_PASSCRED. On the userland level, kdbus helps applications get that
information race-free, easier and faster than they would otherwise.

> systemd and other major users will use send-time metadata.  Once that
> happens, it's ABI (even if it's purely in userspace), and changing it
> is asking for security holes to pop up.  So you'll be mostly stuck
> with it.

We know we can't break the ABI. At most, we could deprecate item types
and introduce new ones, but we want to avoid that by all means of
course. However, I fail to see how that is related to send time
metadata, or even to kdbus in general, as all ABIs have to be kept stable.

> Do you have some simple benchmark code you can share?  I'd like to
> play with it a bit.

Sure, it's part of the self-test suite. Call it with "-t benchmark" to
run the benchmark as isolated test with verbose output. The code for
that lives in test-benchmark.c.


Thanks,
Daniel