Re: Systemd, nightmare or opportunity?

Valerio Bellizzomi <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.capabilities.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 09:42 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 08:33, Rob Meijer <rmeijer-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/[email protected]> wrote:
> > As those of you who use Linux may know, more and more Linux distributions
> > are moving away from their init systems, and are moving to systemd. A
> > consortium of interdependent system programs that replace not only
> > init/startup, but a whole range of other functionality that were
> > previously handled by independent software in the unix line (do one thing,
> > do one thing good) that I feel loosely forms the philosophy that also
> > underlies capability discipline. On one side, it would seem that a move
> > away from this philosophy would be a move away from anything POLA related.
> > On the other side however, this also might provide an
> > opportunity/challenge for people concerned with least authority on the
> > language level. If we could come up with a drop-in least authority rewrite
> > of systemd in a capability secure language (David-Sarah might have a clue
> > about what language to pick ;-) ), this could definetely become the basis
> > for a much more robust version of Linux, that could easily be addapted by
> > all those distro's now moving towards this horrible systemd architecture.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> What exactly is "horrible" about the architecture?

It introduces various configuration files that are located outside
the /etc directory.


> Before, SysVinit/Upstart ran everything as root, relying on each
> program to open the sockets it desired and drop privileges. Now,
> systemd opens all sockets and passes them (capability-style) to the
> programs, which are run under a limited user account (there are also
> quite a few sandboxing features offered, such as private /tmp, private
> network namespaces, containers, etc).
> 
> It also uses cgroups to group processes reliably (so killing a service
> really does kill all its processes), and (I think) provides reliable
> logging information (one service can't log messages appearing to be
> from another service).
> 
> Being written in C is disappointing, but I can't imagine that anything
> else would have been politically acceptable.
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.