[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Al Viro <> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:54:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Huh, interesting.
>> I was imagining that each of a server's peers (capability holders)
>> would have a fresh struct file, but maybe this wouldn't be needed at
>> all. You'd still need a way to get replies to your request, but the
>> API could just as easily be:
>> int send_to_capability(int dest, int source, const void *data, size_t len, ...);
>> where dest would be the destination's fd and source would be whatever
>> receive queue I expect the response on.
>> So maybe this is feasible. It doesn't solve broadcasts, but dbus
>> unicast could easily layer over a facility like this and the context
>> switch problem would go away for unicast.
>> Heck, I'd use it for my own proprietary stuff, too. It would be way
>> easier than the absurd tangle of socketpairs I currently use.
> BTW, the main issue with AF_UNIX passing is that recepient isn't asleep
> awaiting for descriptors - they are thrown by sender at whoever's receiving
> and sit there until somebody gets around to picking them.
> _IF_ we had
> client: I want a desciptor <goes to sleep, interruptibly>
> kernel: assign it a sequence number
> server: sees request (including sequence number)
> server: give this fd to originator of request #N
> kernel: check if originator is still there, insert the damn thing into their
> descriptor table if they still are and return the obtained number
> or
> server: tell the originator of request #N to fuck off
> kernel: check if originator is still there and gleefully pass the "fuck off" if
> they still are
> we wouldn't have the in-flight state at all, and there goes the garbage
> collection shite. With some elaboration, it could even carry the
> authentication traffic - "fuck off" might be "answer this challenge", with
> the next "I want a descriptor" carrying reply...

I wonder if we could get away with having the receiver pre-allocate
some placeholder fds and then have the kernel replace a placeholder
with a passed fd immediately when the fd is sent and enqueue *that* in
the cmsg data. If you send an fd to someone who hasn't assigned any
placeholders to the receiving socket, then you get an error.

To keep the accounting sane, a placeholder would be a bona fide fd,
presumably a reference to a global placeholder anon_inode.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-16 03:21    [W:0.232 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site