Re: [gdm-list] RFC: user session lifetimes vs. $DISPLAY
- From: Simon McVittie <simon mcvittie collabora co uk>
- To: Peeters Simon <peeters simon gmail com>
- Cc: "Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan h kok intel com>, systemd-devel lists freedesktop org, gdm-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [gdm-list] RFC: user session lifetimes vs. $DISPLAY
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:42:33 +0000
On 19/02/13 23:55, Peeters Simon wrote:
or just use a systemd generater to generate systemd .service files from the
dbus service files.
(i have something like this laying around slightly unfinished if you
want code, let me know)
That would be an interesting way to avoid having to either patch every
single D-Bus session service (there are rather a lot of them!) to have a
systemd unit, or have `dbus-daemon --session` implement the same
display-tracking as `systemd --user`. Could you publish this somewhere,
please?
No, you're right, it's one per (uid, seat) pair. So for multi-seat
setups there'd certainly have to be some concept of "best X11 display"
(most recently started?) in the environment of new activations.
Display property of org.freedesktop.login1.User?
Indirectly, yes. User.Display is the (ID and) object path of a
login1.Session, and that Session's Display property is the X11 display
we actually wanted.
In the systemd patches I'm trying out, I'm actually planning to use
libsystemd-login (= inotify on files in /run), because systemd's D-Bus
code is mostly geared towards being a service rather than being a client
of an external service; listening for those signals without a
vulnerability equivalent to CVE-2013-0292 would basically require
reinventing GDBusProxy (track the owner of the o.fd.login1 name, ignore
signals not from that owner), and that's a lot of code for what ought to
be a simple task.
My opinion is that gnome-settings-daemon does to many things.
I'm sure it does; but the more changes get added to the critical path,
the longer it will take to make them all, agree with the various
projects' maintainers that they are the *right* changes, and get them
all landed.
I do notice that gnome-settings-daemon isn't D-Bus-activatable - it's
currently run as an "application" by gnome-session, which will
presumably remain a one-per-DISPLAY thing - so it might be OK to have
several g-s-d instances queueing for the org.gnome.SettingsDaemon name,
and have each of them additionally take an "instanced" bus name like
org.gnome.SettingsDaemon._3a0 or something?
we could use a little wrapper binary that tracks the users sessions, and
launches an instantiated service for each new display, so that all X11 stuff
(window managers included) runs once per DISPLAY but the other services run
once per user.
I'm not at all sure that window managers should be a systemd service. My
understanding is that window managers that aren't part of a larger
"desktop environment" generally act as the main process run by xinit or
gdm or whatever, whose lifetime defines the lifetime of the X session?
(So, the same role as gnome-session.)
i3.service:
[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/libexec/systemd-foreach-display --user i3 service
This seems to assume that you always have one or more displays? Unless
systemd-foreach-display is actually a daemon...
The only thing blocking this for now is that systemd does not appear
to send PropertyChanged signals for this property.
This can currently be worked around by monitoring PropertyChanged for
Sessions, I think - the Display can't change unless either there is a
new login session with an X display, or an existing login session with
an X display has gone away.
S
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]