Re: gnome-sdk update and TODOs

[Tanu Kaskinen <tanu kaskinen linux intel com>]

On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:41 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On tis, 2014-12-16 at 09:48 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > Yes, kdbus is something that could be useful to plug this leak (though
> > we'd also need to make sure we don't add much overhead). In general,
> > securing the protocol is something we'd like to have, but is a huge
> > can of worms right now -- securing the protocol post-facto will be
> > hard to do right.
>
> kdbus should have very nice performance characteristics for this kind of
> use, but yeah, there are always risks with switching to an unknown
> system. 
>
> I wonder if it could be possible to support both a new protocol and the
> old one at the same time. Then one could ignore security concerns in the
> old one and force contained apps to use the new one.

If we add a kdbus protocol implementation, in my opinion that should
anyway exist side by side with the current native protocol, if only for
backward compatibility reasons. The only reason I can see why anyone
would object to that is that it means more code to maintain.

-- 
Tanu