[systemd-devel] [PATCH] bus: Add support for eavesdrop in sd_bus_add_match()

[Kay Sievers]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Lennart Poettering
<lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12.12.13 15:22, Simon McVittie (simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/13 14:28, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> > kay and Daniel are working on changing the semantics of monitoring
>> > entirely. Instead of turning monitoring on and off on an existing
>> > connection they want this to be an entirely new connection type
>>
>> Colin Walters wanted to do this in dbus-daemon too (a separate
>> /var/run/dbus/system_bus_monitor_socket that's only accessible by root,
>> or something), but nobody has got round to it yet.
>>
>> Another possibility might be to make the eavesdropped stream obviously
>> not the same thing as the normal D-Bus stream, for instance by wrapping
>> it in pcap format as used by bustle(1) (as in my proof-of-concept
>> dbus-daemon patches on
>> <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60859>). bustle-pcap(1) is
>> a standalone implementation of "connect, eavesdrop, produce a pcap
>> stream" for traditional D-Bus, similar to dbus-monitor.
>>
>> > the
>> > same way as "starter" (i.e. those which may be used to take a well-known
>> > name and get notified when the service behind it needs to be activated)
>> > connections are different from normal connections
>>
>> Please consider naming this differently: "starter" in the D-Bus
>> Specification (e.g. DBUS_STARTER_ADDRESS) is something rather different.
>> Maybe "placeholder"?
>
> Well, the "starter" stuff is something that app developers will never
> see. It's just the backend for the ".busname" unit type, that's all, and
> people only get in contact with .busname units, nothing else. Thus I
> don't think that the name is a big issue. OTOH I don't mind renaming it
> in the Kernel either. Kay? Maybe call it "activator" instead?

Put it on my list. I'll rename it, as soon as stuff works again. :)

Kay