| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <47579DEB.9020102@davidnewall.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:29:55 +1030 From: David Newall <david@...idnewall.com> To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com> CC: Renzo Davoli <renzo@...unibo.it>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN) Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Dec 06, 2007, at 00:30:16, Renzo Davoli wrote: >> AF_IPN is different. AF_IPN is the broadcast and peer-to-peer >> extension of AF_UNIX. It supports communication among *user* processes. > > Ok, you say it's different, but then you describe how IP unicast and > broadcast work. Renzo also described something new (in the socket() arena): the multi-reader, multi-writer is just not available in IP. I wonder if this solves the same problem as d-bus? > So if you really think this is something that belongs in the kernel > you need to provide much more detailed descriptions and use-cases for > why it cannot be implemented in user-space or with small modifications > to existing UDP/TCP networking. I would strengthen this sentiment: If you think something belongs in the kernel, you need to argue your case (provide much more detailed descriptions and use-cases.) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists