linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to AF

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: <4F4F641E.7000501@collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:57:18 +0100
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	rodrigo.moya@...labora.co.uk, javier@...labora.co.uk,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lennart@...ttering.net,
	kay.sievers@...y.org, alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk,
	bart.cerneels@...labora.co.uk, sjoerd.simons@...labora.co.uk,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to
 AF_UNIX

On 02/28/2012 08:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo.moya@...labora.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:47:39 +0100
> 
>> Because of all of this, UDP/IP multicast wasn't even considered as an
>> option. We might be wrong in some/all of those, so could you please
>> comment on them to check if that's so?
> 
> You guys seem to want something that isn't AF_UNIX, ordering guarentees
> and whatnot, it really has no place in these protocols.
> 
> You've designed a userlevel subsystem with requirements that no existing
> socket layer can give, and you just figured you'd work that out later.
> 
> I think you rather should have reconsidered these premises and designed
> something that could handle reality which is AF_UNIX can't do multicast
> and nobody guarentees those strange ordering requirements you seem to
> have.

Yes, you are right it doesn't follow AF_UNIX semantics so Unix sockets
is not the best place to add our multicast implementation.

So, now we are trying a different approach. To create a new address
family AF_MCAST. That way we can have more control over the semantics of
the socket interface for that family.

We expect to have some patches in a few days and we will resend.

Does this makes more sense to you?

Best regards,
Javier
--
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/