linux-kernel - Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)

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]

Message-ID: <20071206053821.GB1464@cs.unibo.it>
Date:	Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:38:21 +0100
From:	renzo@...unibo.it (Renzo Davoli)
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:40:55 +0100
> renzo@...unibo.it (Renzo Davoli) wrote:
> > 0- (Constructive) comments.
> > 1- The "official" assignment of an Address Family.
> > 2- Another "grabbing hook" for interfaces (like the ones already
> > We are studying some way to register/deregister grabbing services,
> > I feel this would be the cleanest way. 
> 
> Post complete source code for kernel part to netdev@...r.kernel.org.
I'll do it as soon as possible.
> If you want the hooks, you need to include the full source code for inclusion
> in mainline. All the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules apply;
> you can't just ask for "facilitators" and expect to keep your stuff out of tree.
I am sorry if I was misunderstood.
I did not want any "facilitator", nor I wanted to keep my code outside
the kernel, on the contrary.
It is perfectly okay for me to provide the entire code for inclusion.
The purposes of my message were the following:
- I wanted to introduce the idea and say to the linux kernel community
  that a team is working on it.
- Address family: is it okay to send a patch that add a new AF?
is there a "AF registry" somewhere? (like the device major/minor
registry or the well-known port assignment for TCP-IP).
- Hook: we have two different options. We can add another grabbing
inline function like those used by the bridge and macvlan or we can
design a grabbing service registration facility. Which one is preferrable?
The former is simpler, the latter is more elegant but it requires some 
changes in the kernel bridge code.
So the former choice is between less-invasive,safer,inelegant, the
latter is more-invasive,less safe,elegant.

We need a bit of time to stabilize the code: deeply testing the existing
features and implementing some more ideas we have on it.
In the meanwhile we would be grateful if the community could kindly ask to the
questions above.

renzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/