problem with system activation

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On 9/21/07, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, it's a design decision. If we have a random name we have to parse
> _all_ the files in the directory looking for a service name. IIRC Havoc
> was okay with saying "the service name has to be the file name" as
> system activation is very security sensitive, and we don't want to be
> doing all the path and file scanning in a setuid helper.
>

Right, the point is to avoid having to load all the files in order to
know which to use.

In retrospect we should have just done this for the session bus too,
since it would ensure a consistent naming scheme and potentially allow
a simpler daemon implementation.

There has been some discussion in the past of allowing the .service
file to list multiple names to activate by, though ("Names="); if we
did that now we'd have to do it only for the session bus. I don't
remember what the point of doing that was anyhow, however. There
doesn't seem to be a lot of clamor for it in any case.

Havoc