[PATCH 3/3] activation: optionally, use systemd for system bus activation

Lennart Poettering mzqohf at 0pointer.de
Thu Jul 8 17:56:13 PDT 2010

On Wed, 07.07.10 23:01, Lennart Poettering (mzqohf at 0pointer.de) wrote:

> On Wed, 07.07.10 16:32, Colin Walters (walters at verbum.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > +  if (dbus_message_is_signal (message, "org.freedesktop.systemd1.Activator", "ActivationFailure"))
> > > +    {
> > > +      BusContext *context;
> > > +
> > > +      context = bus_connection_get_context (connection);
> > > +      return dbus_activation_systemd_failure(bus_context_get_activation(context), message);
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > 
> > I don't like having a magic signal that the bus processes here.
> > There's no checking of the sender which is clearly wrong.
> Hmm, I need to investigate that further.

I have now investigated this. The function the code above is from is
called after the policy checks are done (the way it should be), and
hence I see no problem here, as long as the policy is correctly
written. The other messages the bus processes are protected only by
policy logic too, and so this should be the same here.

Does that satisfy your criticism?

I'd love to get an OK for commiting this, so that I can upload this to
rawhide, to get D-Bus cooperate with systemd there nicely.

BTW, What happened to the MAYBE patches and the unix fd criticism? I am
currently in a mood that I could roll another D-Bus release with the
autospawning merged (including possibly launchd) and a whitespace

Also, more and more people have started using the unix fd passing
now. (I think I saw another blog post about this on p.g.o today, didn't
I?) If people really want to change the APIs there again, they should do
that quickly. Or was the last semi-consensus that the API should stay
the way I implemented it?


Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the dbus mailing list