linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Rust Socket abstractions

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: <0ba551eb-480e-4327-b62f-fc105d280821@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 03:30:05 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Davide Rovelli <roveld@....ch>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Michele Dalle Rive <dallerivemichele@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Davide Rovelli <davide.rovelli@....ch>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Rust Socket abstractions

> Correct. I work with Michele, let me clarify. We are a research lab working
> on a low-jitter networking prototype implemented as an internal LKM (our
> last paper: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc21-jahnke.pdf). When
> trying to convert it to Rust, we noticed the lack of socket abstractions
> which Michele implemented.

I guess i need to read the paper, or wait for the code to be made
public, but this API on its own does not make much sense to me. Or my
assumptions are all wrong.

So you have an application in user space wanting to use this
protocol. I assume it is using BSD sockets to communicate with the
kernel and the protocol. So you need an API below sockets to get this
traffic, i assume a whole new protocol family? But you have an API on
top of sockets for TCP/UDP. So i guess your protocol somehow
encapsulate the traffic and then uses the API your are proposing to
send over TCP or UDP?

Which makes me think:

Why go through sockets twice for a low jitter networking protocol?

How do you avoid deadlocks when you connect the bottom of sockets back
to the top of socket?

    Andrew