On 06/02/2016 11:01 AM, Ray Strode wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Leaking session processes have been a perennial problem that >> we have been battling forever (gconf, ibus, pulseaudio, the list goes >> on...). And they are causing actual problems, from preventing re-login >> to subtly breaking the next session to slowing down shutdown. > > This is definitely true. It's a class of bug that's hit us over and > over again. (in addition to gconf, ibus, and pulseaudio above, you > could add bonobo-activation-server, evolution-data-server, gam_server > off the top of my head). The problem is that background services > don't generally take display connections, since they don't need to > display anything. So they don't die when the display goes away. > > We tried to fix this a long time ago with the introduction of dbus > into the desktop. The idea was the session dbus-daemon daemon would > define the scope of the session, and services would grab a bus > connection if they wanted to be scoped to the session. > > Of course, starting in Fedora 24, we no longer have a session bus. > It's a user bus now. So the bus won't go away until the last user > session (for a user) ends, and those background services won't go away > until they lose their bus connections, since they still rely on > dbus-daemon to cut the cord when the session ends. While those > background services are waiting for their bus connection to disappear, > they're keeping the session alive (but in a "closing" state). > > To me, KillUserProcesses=yes is better from a theoretical > it-should-have-always-done-this-if-it-could-have standpoint, and it's > better from real world > it-eliminates-a-class-of-bugs-that-has-plagued-us standpoint. > > I don't like that it requires users to have to change workflows, so > that's a negative and I understand why the change is controversial. > > We may want to consider reverting the user bus change for F24 and > revisit in F25, not sure. > I don't think we need to change Fedora 24 for this. Unless I misunderstood, this systemd change has not been pushed to Fedora 24 (nor proposed for it). We're prepping for how to deal with things in Fedora 25. So to Smooge's point, I think we should leave this as-is and avoid any new fallout during Final Freeze. We have months to address things in Fedora 25.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
