set user id for service ?

Scott James Remnant scott at
Tue Sep 19 17:47:39 PDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:33 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:

(noting that this conversation has nothing to do with upstart at this
point :p)

> On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 16:01 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 10:49 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > 
> > > What this also means is that the code for the "session programs" and the 
> > > code for the systemwide / nobody-logged-in daemon *should* be 99% the same.
> > > 
> > > Right now we have some historical daemons that are systemwide only and 
> > > some historical daemons that are session only, and we need to evolve 
> > > them toward the above goal instead.
> > > 
> > The only piece I don't understand is why to have two separate daemons at
> > all.  Why not just have a general "manager daemon" that sits outside the
> > user's session, which receives notification that users have logged in or
> > out, and turns on/off checking #2?
> Well, because such policy daemons (g-s, g-p-m, g-v-m, nm-applet, etc.)
>  - show some UI in form of an icon in the notification area (systray)
>  - need to interact with the user (notifications, dialogs) before doing
>    a specific action
>  - use gconf libraries to get the settings for a user
>  - call into the mechanism provider (for example HAL) as the user on
>    whose behalf they are running - this is such that the mechanism can
>    refuse service to the caller dependent on how security policy is
>    configured. 
>    For example, today this security policy is mostly binary; on Fedora,
>    if you're at the console we allow you to do anything, if you are not
>    we refuse anything controversial. On Debian I believed this is
>    similar, only controlled by group membership (plugdev group).
>    (PolicyKit is an attempt to address this.)
> and retrofitting that into a "manager daemon" sounds pretty impossible
> at worst and hard at best. You'd end up with a proxy running in each
> desktop session and the "manager daemon" being something that is reduced
> to a mere mechanism. And we already have such mechanisms in place
> already.
But doesn't Network Manager work this way already?  You have the manager
daemon running as root, and the policy daemons running as the users?

This kind of separation seems to make sense to me.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the dbus mailing list