netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #2]

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: <20070316153408.3a9a244a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:34:08 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try
 #2]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:23:13 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > If your messages are datagrams and unreliable -> SOCK_DGRAM
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > If your messages are datagrams and reliable -> SOCK_RDM
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > If your messages are datagrams, reliable and ordered -> SOCK_SEQPACKET
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > If your messages are streams of bits, reliable and ordered -> SOCK_STREAM
> 
> Nope.

So your messages are neither reliable not unreliable, nor ordered, nor
unordered.

NAK

Until you work out what your messages actually are and use a proper
standard socket type. And "but there are higher layers" isn't relevant
here, this is true for Appletalk as well and it doesn't have to go
inventing new types for everything as you seem to.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html