Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:47:24AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 07:45 +, David Härdeman wrote:
>> April 24, 2017 5:49 PM, "Dan Williams"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet.
>>> Would be nice to see the sample code.
>>> 
>>> Dan
>> 
>> My GNOME-based client was based on the gdbus-example-objectmanager-
>> client.c so I hope it's correct, but sure, I'll try to pare down the
>> GNOME/gdbus-based client code and the (sd-bus based) server code to
>> two simple test cases and provide those later this week.
>
>Cool.  I'd be happy to take a look at it.  It may well turn out to be a
>gdbus bug, but without seeing the code it's not clear.

I've added test cases at:
https://github.com/Alphix/gdbus-sdbus-test

-- 
David Härdeman
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:21:19PM +0200, David Härdeman wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:45AM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>>No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
>>involved in the Object-Manager:
>>
>>Signal: InterfacesAdded
>>Signal: InterfacesRemoved
>>Call: GetManagedObjects
>>
>>The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
>>respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
>>used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
>>their respective interfaces) when starting your application.
>>
>>So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
>>signals, but did not return that information in the
>>GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
>>The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
>>but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
>>it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
>>mismatch (as you observed above).
>>
>>Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
>>information. It does *not* change any policy.
>>
>>I think the 2 underlying problems you saw are bugs in both gdbus and
>>sd-bus. The one in sd-bus I tried to fix above, the one in gdbus is
>>only about counting interfaces and properly detecting negative
>>interface-counts. The gdbus bug is non-severe, though, since it
>>originates in a buggy remote client. So there is no hard reason to
>>change gdbus there.
>
>Ok, I've tried the patch. It seems to fix things insofar that
>InterfacesAdded/InterfacesRemoved/GetManagedObjects all report 5
>interfaces (checked with dbus-monitor).
>
>gdbus still gets royally confused though. It seems to report 5
>interfaces for objects which are added dynamically (i.e. signalled via
>InterfacesAdded) and 1 interface for objects which are generated via
>GetManagedObjects (even though the sd-bus server reports 5 interfaces).

Scratch that. With your patch gdbus seems to consistently report 5
interfaces. But there's still some confusion to address in gdbus (the
additional interfaces have no names for example).

-- 
David Härdeman
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:45AM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> April 21, 2017 1:22 PM, "David Herrmann"  wrote:
>>> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>>> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
>>> so far.
>>
>> Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, 
>> you'll see that it is sd-bus that already *does* report all interfaces while 
>> gdbus doesnt?
>
>No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
>involved in the Object-Manager:
>
>Signal: InterfacesAdded
>Signal: InterfacesRemoved
>Call: GetManagedObjects
>
>The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
>respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
>used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
>their respective interfaces) when starting your application.
>
>So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
>signals, but did not return that information in the
>GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
>The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
>but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
>it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
>mismatch (as you observed above).
>
>Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
>information. It does *not* change any policy.
>
>I think the 2 underlying problems you saw are bugs in both gdbus and
>sd-bus. The one in sd-bus I tried to fix above, the one in gdbus is
>only about counting interfaces and properly detecting negative
>interface-counts. The gdbus bug is non-severe, though, since it
>originates in a buggy remote client. So there is no hard reason to
>change gdbus there.

Ok, I've tried the patch. It seems to fix things insofar that
InterfacesAdded/InterfacesRemoved/GetManagedObjects all report 5
interfaces (checked with dbus-monitor).

gdbus still gets royally confused though. It seems to report 5
interfaces for objects which are added dynamically (i.e. signalled via
InterfacesAdded) and 1 interface for objects which are generated via
GetManagedObjects (even though the sd-bus server reports 5 interfaces).

I'll start working on a testcase...

-- 
David Härdeman
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 07:45 +, David Härdeman wrote:
> April 24, 2017 5:49 PM, "Dan Williams"  wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 16:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com)
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces
> > > > > > reported by
> > > > > > sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course,
> > > > > > that gdbus
> > > > > > can be considered the "reference" implementation).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does the appended patch fix your issue?
> > > > > (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
> > > > 
> > > > Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it
> > > > seems
> > > > to do
> > > > the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
> > > 
> > > This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
> > > reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report
> > > them
> > > so far.
> > > 
> > > Note that we really better report all interfaces an object
> > > supports. I
> > > don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete
> > > information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all
> > > our
> > > messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears
> > > to
> > > me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...
> > 
> > It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet.
> > Would be nice to see the sample code.
> > 
> > Dan
> 
> My GNOME-based client was based on the gdbus-example-objectmanager-
> client.c so I hope it's correct, but sure, I'll try to pare down the
> GNOME/gdbus-based client code and the (sd-bus based) server code to
> two simple test cases and provide those later this week.

Cool.  I'd be happy to take a look at it.  It may well turn out to be a
gdbus bug, but without seeing the code it's not clear.

Dan
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Herrmann]

Hey

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Lennart Poettering
 wrote:
> On Tue, 25.04.17 09:54, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> >> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>> >> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
>> >> so far.
>> >
>> > Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, 
>> > you'll see that it is sd-bus that already *does* report all interfaces 
>> > while gdbus doesnt?
>>
>> No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
>> involved in the Object-Manager:
>>
>> Signal: InterfacesAdded
>> Signal: InterfacesRemoved
>> Call: GetManagedObjects
>>
>> The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
>> respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
>> used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
>> their respective interfaces) when starting your application.
>>
>> So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
>> signals, but did not return that information in the
>> GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
>> The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
>> but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
>> it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
>> mismatch (as you observed above).
>>
>> Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
>> information. It does *not* change any policy.
>>
>> I think the 2 underlying problems you saw are bugs in both gdbus and
>> sd-bus. The one in sd-bus I tried to fix above, the one in gdbus is
>> only about counting interfaces and properly detecting negative
>> interface-counts. The gdbus bug is non-severe, though, since it
>> originates in a buggy remote client. So there is no hard reason to
>> change gdbus there.
>
> Could you please send the sd-bus side fix as PR?

Now pending as #5799.

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 25.04.17 09:54, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:

> >> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
> >> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
> >> so far.
> >
> > Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, 
> > you'll see that it is sd-bus that already *does* report all interfaces 
> > while gdbus doesnt?
> 
> No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
> involved in the Object-Manager:
> 
> Signal: InterfacesAdded
> Signal: InterfacesRemoved
> Call: GetManagedObjects
> 
> The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
> respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
> used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
> their respective interfaces) when starting your application.
> 
> So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
> signals, but did not return that information in the
> GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
> The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
> but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
> it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
> mismatch (as you observed above).
> 
> Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
> information. It does *not* change any policy.
> 
> I think the 2 underlying problems you saw are bugs in both gdbus and
> sd-bus. The one in sd-bus I tried to fix above, the one in gdbus is
> only about counting interfaces and properly detecting negative
> interface-counts. The gdbus bug is non-severe, though, since it
> originates in a buggy remote client. So there is no hard reason to
> change gdbus there.

Could you please send the sd-bus side fix as PR?

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

April 25, 2017 9:54 AM, "David Herrmann"  wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
> 
>> April 21, 2017 1:22 PM, "David Herrmann"  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:19:22PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
>> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
>> sd-bus implements the API.
>> 
>> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
>> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
>> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>> 
>> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
>> generated:
>> 
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>> array [
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>> ]
>> 
>> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>> 
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>> array [
>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>> ]
>> 
>> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.
>> 
>> Does the appended patch fix your issue?
>> (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>> 
>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
>>> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>>> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
>>> so far.
>> 
>> Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, 
>> you'll see that it is sd-bus
>> that already *does* report all interfaces while gdbus doesnt?
> 
> No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
> involved in the Object-Manager:
> 
> Signal: InterfacesAdded
> Signal: InterfacesRemoved
> Call: GetManagedObjects
> 
> The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
> respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
> used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
> their respective interfaces) when starting your application.
> 
> So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
> signals, but did not return that information in the
> GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
> The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
> but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
> it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
> mismatch (as you observed above).
> 
> Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
> information. It does *not* change any policy.

Oh, I see. Thanks. I'll try the patch ASAP.

Regards,
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Herrmann]

Hi

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
> April 21, 2017 1:22 PM, "David Herrmann"  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:19:22PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>>> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
>>> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
>>> sd-bus implements the API.
>>>
>>> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
>>> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
>>> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>>>
>>> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
>>> generated:
>>>
>>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null 
>>> destination)
>>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>> array [
>>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>> ]
>>>
>>> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>>>
>>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null 
>>> destination)
>>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>> array [
>>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>> ]
>>>
>>> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.
> 
 Does the appended patch fix your issue?
 (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>>>
>>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
>>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
>>
>> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
>> so far.
>
> Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, you'll 
> see that it is sd-bus that already *does* report all interfaces while gdbus 
> doesnt?

No, it does not. sd-bus was inconsistent. See, there are 3 things
involved in the Object-Manager:

Signal: InterfacesAdded
Signal: InterfacesRemoved
Call: GetManagedObjects

The first two signals are used to add and remove objects (and their
respective interfaces) at runtime. The GetManagedObjects() call is
used to bootstrap, that is, to get the initial set of objects (and
their respective interfaces) when starting your application.

So far, sd-bus reported the builtin interfaces correctly via the
signals, but did not return that information in the
GetManagedObjects() call. My patch fixed this omission.
The effect of this is that objects added/removed at runtime work fine,
but if an object was there already when your application starts, then
it will never be removed, since gdbus will see an interface-count
mismatch (as you observed above).

Hence, the patch I provided fixes how sd-bus provides this
information. It does *not* change any policy.

I think the 2 underlying problems you saw are bugs in both gdbus and
sd-bus. The one in sd-bus I tried to fix above, the one in gdbus is
only about counting interfaces and properly detecting negative
interface-counts. The gdbus bug is non-severe, though, since it
originates in a buggy remote client. So there is no hard reason to
change gdbus there.

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

April 24, 2017 5:49 PM, "Dan Williams"  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 16:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> 
> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces
> reported by
> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course,
> that gdbus
> can be considered the "reference" implementation).
 
 Does the appended patch fix your issue?
 (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>>> 
>>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems
>>> to do
>>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
>> 
>> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report
>> them
>> so far.
>> 
>> Note that we really better report all interfaces an object
>> supports. I
>> don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.
>> 
>> Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete
>> information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our
>> messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to
>> me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...
> 
> It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet.
> Would be nice to see the sample code.
> 
> Dan

My GNOME-based client was based on the gdbus-example-objectmanager-client.c so 
I hope it's correct, but sure, I'll try to pare down the GNOME/gdbus-based 
client code and the (sd-bus based) server code to two simple test cases and 
provide those later this week.

Regards,
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

April 21, 2017 1:22 PM, "David Herrmann"  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:19:22PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
>> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
>> sd-bus implements the API.
>> 
>> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
>> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
>> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>> 
>> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
>> generated:
>> 
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>> array [
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>> string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>> ]
>> 
>> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>> 
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>> object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>> array [
>> string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>> ]
>> 
>> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.

>>> Does the appended patch fix your issue?
>>> (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>> 
>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
> 
> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
> so far.

Quite the contrary? If you look at the output from dbus-monitor above, you'll 
see that it is sd-bus that already *does* report all interfaces while gdbus 
doesnt?
 
> Note that we really better report all interfaces an object supports. I
> don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.

Maybe, I'm no dbus expert. And there does seem to be a bug in gdbus as well 
since the additional interfaces manage to confuse it. Anyway, it seems that 
either sd-bus should adapt the gdbus style or vice versa...maybe you could talk 
directly to the gdbus people?

Regards,
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

April 24, 2017 4:51 PM, "Lennart Poettering"  wrote:

> On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
>> can be considered the "reference" implementation).
>> 
>> Does the appended patch fix your issue?
>> (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>> 
>> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
>> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
>> 
>> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
>> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
>> so far.
>> 
>> Note that we really better report all interfaces an object supports. I
>> don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.
> 
> Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete
> information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our
> messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to
> me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...

In that case, no changes are necessary to sd-bus since it already exposes all 
interfaces.

I've filed a bug report against gdbus:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781524

Regards,
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 16:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > > > > Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces
> > > > > reported by
> > > > > sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course,
> > > > > that gdbus
> > > > > can be considered the "reference" implementation).
> > > > 
> > > > Does the appended patch fix your issue?
> > > > (line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
> > > 
> > > Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems
> > > to do
> > > the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
> > 
> > This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
> > reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report
> > them
> > so far.
> > 
> > Note that we really better report all interfaces an object
> > supports. I
> > don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.
> 
> Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete
> information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our
> messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to
> me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...

It's not clear that the GNOME side was implemented correctly yet. 
Would be nice to see the sample code.

Dan
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 21.04.17 13:22, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:

> >>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
> >>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
> >>> can be considered the "reference" implementation).
> >>
> >>Does the appended patch fix your issue?
> >>(line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
> >
> > Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
> > the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?
> 
> This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
> reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
> so far.
> 
> Note that we really better report all interfaces an object supports. I
> don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.

Yeah, I#d agree with that. I think we should provide complete
information, and that means including built-in interfaces in all our
messages, in particular as some of them are optional. It appears to
me, that gdbus should be changed here, not sd-bus...

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Herrmann]

Hi

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, David Härdeman  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:19:22PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>>On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
>>> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
>>> sd-bus implements the API.
>>>
>>> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
>>> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
>>> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>>>
>>> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
>>> generated:
>>>
>>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null 
>>> destination)
>>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>>array [
>>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>>>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>>]
>>>
>>> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>>>
>>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null 
>>> destination)
>>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>>array [
>>>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>>]
>>>
>>> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.
>>>
>>> Beside simply being different, this difference seems to confuse gdbus.
>>> If I create a test client, it will report that any object which is
>>> already existing when I start the client has 1 interface and any object
>>> which is added/removed subsequently is reported as having 5 interfaces,
>>> 4 of which are nameless (this would appear to be one or more gdbus
>>> bug(s)).
>>>
>>> This bug in gdbus also means that it doesn't correctly catch the removal
>>> of an object which existed at the time the client was started (because
>>> of the interface count mismatch).
>>>
>>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
>>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
>>> can be considered the "reference" implementation).
>>
>>Does the appended patch fix your issue?
>>(line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)
>
> Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
> the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?

This change makes sure all objects have the built-in interfaces
reported at all times. The GetManagedObjects() call didn't report them
so far.

Note that we really better report all interfaces an object supports. I
don't know why glib does not do this, but I think it should.

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:19:22PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
>> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
>> sd-bus implements the API.
>>
>> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
>> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
>> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>>
>> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
>> generated:
>>
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>array [
>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>]
>>
>> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>>
>> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
>> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
>> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
>> member=InterfacesRemoved
>>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>>array [
>>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>>]
>>
>> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.
>>
>> Beside simply being different, this difference seems to confuse gdbus.
>> If I create a test client, it will report that any object which is
>> already existing when I start the client has 1 interface and any object
>> which is added/removed subsequently is reported as having 5 interfaces,
>> 4 of which are nameless (this would appear to be one or more gdbus
>> bug(s)).
>>
>> This bug in gdbus also means that it doesn't correctly catch the removal
>> of an object which existed at the time the client was started (because
>> of the interface count mismatch).
>>
>> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
>> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
>> can be considered the "reference" implementation).
>
>Does the appended patch fix your issue?
>(line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)

Haven't tried it yet, but just from reading the patch...it seems to do
the opposite of what I'd expect? I.e. add *more* interfaces?

>diff --git a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>index 9bd07ffca..b6f5afe1b 100644
>--- a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>+++ b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>@@ -1057,6 +1057,22 @@ static int object_manager_serialize_path(
> if (r < 0)
> return r;
>
>+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
>"org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer", 0);
>+if (r < 0)
>+return r;
>+
>+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
>"org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable", 0);
>+if (r < 0)
>+return r;
>+
>+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
>"org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties", 0);
>+if (r < 0)
>+return r;
>+
>+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
>"org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager", 0);
>+if (r < 0)
>+return r;
>+
> found_something = true;
> }

-- 
David Härdeman
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Herrmann]

Hey

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Härdeman  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
> sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
> sd-bus implements the API.
>
> I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
> exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
> org.gnome.TestManager.Device.
>
> Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
> generated:
>
> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
> member=InterfacesRemoved
>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>array [
>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
>   string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>]
>
> If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:
>
> signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
> serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
> interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
> member=InterfacesRemoved
>object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
>array [
>   string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
>]
>
> The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.
>
> Beside simply being different, this difference seems to confuse gdbus.
> If I create a test client, it will report that any object which is
> already existing when I start the client has 1 interface and any object
> which is added/removed subsequently is reported as having 5 interfaces,
> 4 of which are nameless (this would appear to be one or more gdbus
> bug(s)).
>
> This bug in gdbus also means that it doesn't correctly catch the removal
> of an object which existed at the time the client was started (because
> of the interface count mismatch).
>
> Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
> sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
> can be considered the "reference" implementation).

Does the appended patch fix your issue?
(line-breaks might be screwed, sorry)

Thanks
David


diff --git a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
index 9bd07ffca..b6f5afe1b 100644
--- a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
+++ b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
@@ -1057,6 +1057,22 @@ static int object_manager_serialize_path(
 if (r < 0)
 return r;

+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
"org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer", 0);
+if (r < 0)
+return r;
+
+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
"org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable", 0);
+if (r < 0)
+return r;
+
+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
"org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties", 0);
+if (r < 0)
+return r;
+
+r = sd_bus_message_append(reply, "{sa{sv}}",
"org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager", 0);
+if (r < 0)
+return r;
+
 found_something = true;
 }
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] sd-bus: ObjectManager difference with gdbus

[David Härdeman]

Hi,

I'm implementing a server which creates an ObjectManager using the
sd-bus API and there seems to be some differences between how gdbus and
sd-bus implements the API.

I implemented a simple ObjectManager at /org/gnome/TestManager which
exports objects /org/gnome/TestManager/fooX with interface
org.gnome.TestManager.Device.

Under sd-bus, if an object is removed, the following signal is
generated:

signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination)
serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
member=InterfacesRemoved
   object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
   array [
  string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer"
  string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Introspectable"
  string "org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties"
  string "org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager"
  string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
   ]

If I implement the same simple server in gdbus, the signal is instead:

signal time=1492642227.714223 sender=:1.104 -> destination=(null destination) 
serial=90 path=/org/gnome/TestManager;
interface=org.freedesktop.DBus.ObjectManager;
member=InterfacesRemoved
   object path "/org/gnome/TestManager/foo0"
   array [
  string "org.gnome.TestManager.Device"
   ]

The corresponding signals are also generated when an object is added.

Beside simply being different, this difference seems to confuse gdbus.
If I create a test client, it will report that any object which is
already existing when I start the client has 1 interface and any object
which is added/removed subsequently is reported as having 5 interfaces,
4 of which are nameless (this would appear to be one or more gdbus
bug(s)).

This bug in gdbus also means that it doesn't correctly catch the removal
of an object which existed at the time the client was started (because
of the interface count mismatch).

Anyway, gdbus bugs aside, it seems that the interfaces reported by
sd-bus should match what gdbus does? (assuming, of course, that gdbus
can be considered the "reference" implementation).

Regards,
David

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel