linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <480E6563.9020109@katalix.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:23:31 +0100
From:	James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Paul Fulghum wrote:
>> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>>> It's complex, I think kernel interface to generic HDLC would mean more
>>> code than PPP implementation required for fixed lines.
>>> Additional requirement - userspace daemon with additional plugin - may
>>> not be the best thing for fixed lines either.
>>>
>>> That would break backward compatibility, too.
>>
>> I maintain both pppd and generic HDLC PPP
>> interfaces for the synclink drivers.
>> I would like to have a single PPP implementation,
>> but what Krzysztof writes about compatibility and complexity
>> (both in coding and user configuration) is a real issue.
>>
>> Many customers who choose to use generic HDLC PPP are *dead*
>> set against the added complexity and (user space)
>> components of using pppd even though it has more features.
>> I say that having tried to persuade such users to use pppd.
>> The response is usually "support the simpler generic
>> HDLC PPP way of doing things or we will go elsewhere".
>> Others require the extra features of pppd.
>>
>> I understand customer desires are not always rational
>> or a primary concern when making these architectural
>> decisions, but I know forcing the extra complexity and
>> components of pppd on generic HDLC users will cause a
>> lot of anger and defections.

Are there technical reasons or is the complexity just a lack of familiarity?

> The fact that Krzysztof's solution was _small_ and _clean_ and easily 
> maintainable was the reason I merged it [into my tree].
> 
> IMO sometimes "one size fits all" is not the best solution.

I guess what caught my eye is a PPP control protocol implementation 
being in the kernel. I'd seen syncppp before but I assumed it was there 
for legacy reasons. A while ago there seemed to be strong desire to move 
control protocols such as bridge spanning tree into userspace. Is this 
no longer the case?

-- 
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development

--
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/