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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <25752.1174318898@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:41:38 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>, 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] 

Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > > Other RPC types use normal socket types.
> > 
> > They do?  Examples please.  I didn't think Linux, at least, has any other
> > RPC socket families, though I could be wrong as I haven't made a thorough
> > study of them.
> 
> SunRPC is implemented in user space and uses the existing TCP/IP layer
> and socket types, even though it is using them in an RPC manner and
> viewed at the RPC layer they are RPCs

SunRPC is not then a suitable analogy.  There is no socket interface that
provides SunRPC as far as I know, so your example is invalid.  Yes, SunRPC is
built on top of something else, SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM or whatever, but that's
like saying TCP is a datagram service rather than a stream service because it's
built on a datagram service (IP).  What a protocol uses out the back is pretty
much irrelevant - what is relevant is what the protocol in question actually
appears to provide to anyone using it.

> >      I have made my client sockets use connect(), but that's just a
> >      convenience and I need to make it possible to avoid doing that to
> >      make it useful to the kernel.  It's similar to SOCK_DGRAM sockets in
> >      this respect.
> 
> So use SOCK_DGRAM, its clearly near enough.

No, it's not.  SOCK_DGRAM is an unreliable, unidirectional datagram passing
service.

David
-
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