|
|
|
|
|
by zarvox
3516 days ago
|
|
My impression is that bus1 appears to have taken the (copious) feedback from the kdbus debacle and actually applied it and looked at other platforms' IPC to build a novel IPC system for Linux worth using. There's a talk [1] about the design of bus1, and comparison against IPC on other platforms where IPC is saner, and how the capability model is the right design for IPC - composable, understandable, and secure-by-default. It strikes me that the bus1 devs arrived at their design after doing the things you suggested! :) Is there something I'm missing? What might an ideal IPC API look like to you? [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zN0b6BfgLY |
|
Erlang's internal IPC is doing it pretty well since before there was a Linux kernel. I don't know if that approach can be ported into the kernel and how complex they are behind the scenes, but spawn / send / receive are apparently simple concepts.
In Erlang: http://erlang.org/doc/getting_started/conc_prog.html#id68696
In Elixir: http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/processes.html