linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] RFC: KBUS messaging subsystem

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: <B8A97132-FADB-4476-8386-16FB5900D47F@tonyibbs.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:23:19 +0100
From:	Tony Ibbs <tibs@...yibbs.co.uk>
To:	Florian Fainelli <florian@...nwrt.org>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-embedded" <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tibs at Kynesim <tibs@...esim.co.uk>,
	Richard Watts <rrw@...esim.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] RFC: KBUS messaging subsystem


On 17 May 2011, at 09:50, Florian Fainelli wrote:

> Sorry for this late answer.

And apologies for my own late response. I'll try to keep this short as
I hope the "Restatement" side-thread will address some of it.

> On Tuesday 22 March 2011 20:36:40 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> 
>> - Why kbus over, say, a user-space daemon and unix-domain sockets?  I'm
>>  not sure I see the advantage that comes with putting this into kernel
>>  space.
> 
> I also fail to see why this would be required. In my opininon you are trading 
> the reliability over complexity by putting this in the kernel.

I hope that's addressed in the "So why did we write it as a kernel
module?" section of the "Restatement" message thread. Basically,
I believe a kernel module is smaller and "steals" reliability from
code written and tested by others. That doesn't mean it's a good
solution "in the wild", of course (privately we can add whatever we
want to the kernel, but in public it is and must be controlled).

> Indeed, I would also suggest having a look at what generic netlink already 
> provides like messages per application PID, multicasting and marshaling. If 
> you intend to keep a part of it in the kernel, you should have a look at this, 
> because from my experience with generic netlink, most of the hard job you are 
> re-doing here, has already been done in a generic manner.

If we do end up heading that way, I hope you won't mind if I ask
you for advice!

All the best,
	Tibs

--
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/