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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:56:32 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:03:59PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > We do need something for the multicast messaging. Whether that's > > > supporting AF_LOCAL, SOCK_RDP with multicast or something else (POSIX > > > message queue extensions ?). There's no real IP layer reliable ordered > > > multicast delivery system that is low latency and lightweight because > > > once it hits real networks it changes from a hard problem into a > > > seriously hard problem because of multicast implosions and the like. > > > > This was attempted in the past with AF_DBUS, but the networking > > maintainers rightfully pointed out that the model there did not work. > > BTW, I don't think this has been brought up in this discussion yet ... > please correct me if I am wrong, my memory is very faint here (*), but > wasn't the main objection to AF_BUS that defining what happens when one of > the subscribed receivers disconnects is a policy matter, and as such > belongs to userspace (which wasn't the case with the submitted AF_BUS > implementation)? > > Was that considered unfixable and AF_BUS consequently given up because of > this? I think it was one of the reasons, I seem to remember many more. At that time, I had lunch with David Miller and he told me a few specific reasons along those lines, and that it just wasn't going to work as a network protocol at all, and to not try that method anymore, but instead, do it as a specific IPC interface, as has been done here :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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