On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:41 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On tis, 2014-12-16 at 09:48 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > Yes, kdbus is something that could be useful to plug this leak (though > > we'd also need to make sure we don't add much overhead). In general, > > securing the protocol is something we'd like to have, but is a huge > > can of worms right now -- securing the protocol post-facto will be > > hard to do right. > > kdbus should have very nice performance characteristics for this kind of > use, but yeah, there are always risks with switching to an unknown > system. > > I wonder if it could be possible to support both a new protocol and the > old one at the same time. Then one could ignore security concerns in the > old one and force contained apps to use the new one.
If we add a kdbus protocol implementation, in my opinion that should anyway exist side by side with the current native protocol, if only for backward compatibility reasons. The only reason I can see why anyone would object to that is that it means more code to maintain. -- Tanu _______________________________________________ gnome-os-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-os-list
