Re: Unexpected gdbus behaviour during PAM authentication
David Llewellyn-Jones <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.freedesktop.dbus |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 16/01/17 11:35, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 at 16:47:21 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> GDBus's threads and PAM really don't mix. You'll need to either use >> something like dbus-glib, which is single-threaded and sync, move your >> D-Bus code to a small helper you'd talk to over Unix sockets (yeah, I >> know...), or wait until PAM dies. > > Please don't use dbus-glib, particularly for security-sensitive code. > It is unmaintained (I am its unmaintainer) and has several bits of > irretrievably bad design. The advice is appreciated, but could you elaborate on the "security-sensitive" part? Apart from being unmaintained, do you know of any specific vulnerabilities or potential dangers? > Single-threaded alternatives to dbus-glib include: > > - dbus' libdbus used directly (it's a verbose low-level API, but still > less bad than dbus-glib's inconvenience layer over it) > > - systemd's sd-bus (Linux-specific) Looking at Matthew Johnson's tutorial [1] and given I only need to call a single method synchronously, libdbus looks manageable. However, I'm a bit concerned about conflicting advice. So far, it seems dbus-glib, gdbus and libdbus all come with health warnings. In particular, I'm not convinced I'll be able to do a better job from repurposing an unmaintained tutorial, compared to using an unmaintained dbus-glib (which compared to my code, at least has the benefit of having been written by someone who knew what they were doing!). David [1] http://www.matthew.ath.cx/misc/dbus -- Website: http://www.flypig.co.uk _______________________________________________ dbus mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dbus