Re: standalone logind (Re: Bits from the systemd + GNOME sprint)
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
> Hi,
>
> Kevin Chadwick:
> > > * last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
> > > one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
> > > kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to do.
> >
> > My first mail stated it.
>
> Did not. See below.
>
"There may be less to consider for a user/admin about dependence
on the simpler or particular parts of the package for example."
"I have avoided root ipv6 exploits due to similar scrutiny."
> > Why do you question it.
>
> Because I do not share your opinion.
>
I guess I need to make sure I stick to one main point as you have
twisted the first question and jumped on my responses even when I
stated they weren't the raised issue. I guess I will have to remember
that as it simply allowed you to distract from the raised issue and
create more noise. Even the thread rename is wrong. There are multiple
binaries in systemd-services so simply breaking them up into multiple
packages means the dependency information needs to be considered once
instead of wasting many admins time, never mind porters and embedded
work. You know I have been considering but it now occurs to me that it
may actually be easier to get something like alpine mini (a kernel and a
small userland) running under qemu to handle a usb driver for a
proprietary tool that enables a tcp port gdbserver or look at porting
access to OpenBSD than deal with debian and systemd.
Out of interest, how does debian kfreebsd compatibility with Linux only
software fair?
> > Look at all the tasks mentioned in the logind man page some of which are
> > unneeded and complex and will have affects upon security.
>
> … which are …?
>
Multi-seat management
Session switch management
Device access management for users
Automatic spawning of text logins on virtual console activation and
user runtime directory management.
By unneeded and which I had already stated I meant by me. I need none of
these and nor would any of my users or products. So why should the job
of removal be harder than it could quite easily be and would be from
almost any other upstream.
More exploits will be found so why make the job of avoiding them where
there is no downside more difficult. Especially when these two were
quite dangerous.
http://osvdb.org/search?search%5Bvuln_title%5D=logind&search%5Btext_type%5D=alltext
______________________________________________________________________
This has been twisted onto an init argument that I never intended
somehow despite the closing line below. So as you haven't already you
may wish to stop reading as this has nothing to do with the raised
issue and is simply adding yet more noise.
> Like systemd in general, I question your assertion that splitting
> logind into separate programs has any effect other than needlessly
> increasing complexity. Now you have at least two programs whose services
> are necessary (or at least damn convenient) to have on a normal Debian
> system; also, these might need to talk to each other, above everything else
> they do -- so you get to debug two interacting asynchronous processes
> instead of one single-threaded one.
>
Might need talk to each other is basically saying in many cases they
don't and that is hardly difficult with many plus sides being:
Competition; better code more easily and readily replaced with even
better or more application specific code and with less devotion of time,
easier porting and adaptability, ease of application specific changes,
well defined tasks and implementations. More easily audited code, More
easily understood code. Less exploitable code required in memory not
to mention less memory required for any particular task to be
accomplished. Using more memory in total means little in the face of
the benefits of requiring less per task when you consider use cases.
I could go on and talk for a very long time about this but you would be
better off buying some books about the origins of Unix and why it works
so well and on so many platforms and is so adaptable to so many
completely different and diverse situations and purposes.
>
> As I'd like to keep d-devel civil (and mostly-technical), I will stop here.
>
> --
> -- Matthias Urlichs
--
_______________________________________________________________________
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'
(Doug McIlroy)
In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd
_______________________________________________________________________
I have no idea why RTFM is used so aggressively on LINUX mailing lists
because whilst 'apropos' is traditionally the most powerful command on
Unix-like systems it's 'modern' replacement 'apropos' on Linux is a tool
to help psychopaths learn to control their anger.
(Kevin Chadwick)
_______________________________________________________________________
Reply to: