
Ask HN: Why is no one talking about kernel assisted IPC bus? - unmdplyr
I&#x27;ve been looking at kd-bus and its later evolution bus1. Seems like both projects are stalled. Why are kernel developers not supportive of a proper messaging system through kernel itself? Or rather what is stopping them from accepting patches to it?<p>bus1 -&gt; https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bus1.org&#x2F;<p>Can someone help me understand?
======
tlb
Help me understand why Bus1 is a good idea? I'm not an expert, but it seems to
me like D-bus accomplishes similar goals without any new mechanisms in the
kernel.

~~~
unmdplyr
Having bus functionality enabled in kernel is beneficial for several reasons.
It strips out lots of unnecessary bells and whistles and just hold some
skeleton for send/receive/advertise. Most POSIX IPCs don't have an
advertisement mechanism that enables discovery without some external
persuasion.

D-Bus does this but has often been criticised for being overtly complex.
OpenWRT came with a simpler solution, but then quickly defined a data protocol
which suffers severely in I/O - it needs JSON for everything.

BUS1 doesn't specify a protocol for actual data itself so I can send/recv C
struct which my process groups know about it.

Also, leaving bus logic in kernel would mean I can write a minimalistic
library wrapping the syscalls for my specialised use, yet keep the
applications readily portable should plans change.

