netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next-2.6 02/13] net-caif: add CAIF header files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:16:19 +0100
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Sjur Brændeland 
	<sjur.brandeland@...ricsson.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	stefano.babic@...ic.homelinux.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next-2.6 02/13] net-caif: add CAIF header files

Hi Sjur,

> >> CAIFSO_CHANNEL is used for specifying the physical interface to use
> >> for the CAIF Channel. You can select the type of interface to use by
> >> setting link_selector: CAIF_PHYPREF_LOW_LAT will typically be used
> >> for AT (or other control traffic), and CAIF_PHYPREF_HIGH_BW for IP
> >> traffic. 
> >> When the CAIF interfaces registers itself it will inform about their
> >> type, (low-latency or high-bandwidth). This approach assumes that you
> >> have only one modem, but multiple links to it (e.g. USB and UART).
> >> 
> >> But you can also specify interface by name using link_name. In this
> >> case you specify the name of the interface to use. I think this would
> >> support your use case with multiple modems attached.
> > 
> > sounds good, but why using a socket option and not allowing to just
> > use bind(). Maybe it is just my personal preference, because I am
> > used to do it like this for TCP and Bluetooth.  
> 
> We actually considered this when designing the interface,
> but I don't feel bind() fits in this case. bind() would normally bind
> an address to the client socket. An interface did not seem
> like a client socket address to us, so we decided to use sockopt instead.
> Conceptually I don't think CAIF has a client address at all, it only
> connects to a server side address.

seems fair enough to me. My personal preference would just be bind, but
I can follow your argumentation. I just wanted to make sure that we have
that option before setting CAIF socket address in stone.

Any reason why not just supporting SO_PRIORITY and SO_BINDTODEVICE on
CAIF sockets then?

Regards

Marcel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html