casey.schaufler at intel.com
Wed Apr 9 16:20:18 GMT 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dev [mailto:dev-bounces at lists.tizen.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kozák
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:55 AM
> To: dev at lists.tizen.org
> Subject: Re: [Dev] Cynara
> V Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:57:37 +0200
> Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow at partner.samsung.com> napsáno:
> > Services that are being used by applications need to control if the
> > caller has sufficient privileges to call each API. In Tizen 2.2.X this
> > level of access control was done using very detailed Smack policy on
> > IPC mechanisms. Since Tizen 3.0 is introducing compact 3-domain Smack
> > policy, there is a need for user-space mechanism that complements the
> > solution. This is a place for new module - Cynara.
> > Details can be found at wiki page:
> > http://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/Security:Cynara
> > Page is still being constructed, but is is high time to share and
> > probably start a discussion.
> > I will be glad to answer any questions about it.
> > I plan to publish roadmap for Cynara development and API draft this
> > week.
> > Best Regards
> > Lukasz Wojciechowski
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > Dev at lists.tizen.org
> > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
> Cynara - libCynara communication is based on UNIX domain sockets, that are
> proven to be much faster than dbus.
> And what about kdbus?
UDS is faster than kdbus on current benchmarks. That's UDS with Smack
compared to kdbus without Smack. There is no reason to assume that
kdbus will ever be faster than UDS. The IPC used by Cynara is point to point.
kdbus adds no value in this case.
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.tizen.org
More information about the Dev