netdev - Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK

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: <48a00ddc692de4b7b71273614e61ab17@chewa.net>
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2008 14:53:59 +0200
From:	Remi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@...phalempin.com>
To:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM


On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:53 +0100, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
wrote:
> There is an API and an address resolution problem involved in specifying
a
> separate/distinct socket type `SOCK_DCCP'.
(...)
> Having also seen the work-arounds in programs that other people wrote,
> I believe that the above change will make it in the long term easier for
> people to write DCCP-enabled applications.

DCCP clearly fails the POSIX definition of SOCK_DGRAM in different ways.

I think this is not a good idea.

> It also relieves the libc writers from having to support another socket
> type.

As long as SOCK_DCCP-or-whatever is not automatically selected when
ai_socktype is nul, this should be both easy to implement in libc *and*
backward compatible (applications will not try to use DCCP implicitly).

> A quick look at SCTP shows that they also did not introduce new socket
> types, relying on the existing SOCK_STREAM/SOCK_SEQPACKET ones.

But they follow the semantics for them.

> It might be still early enough to resolve this, before it is widely used
> and can then only be supported via work-arounds.
> 
> I can't see a disadvantage here and the only work required is to update
> that
> datagram-based not automatically means connection-less.
> 
> Is there support for this change or are there reasons to keep SOCK_DCCP?

Maybe the name SOCK_DCCP sucks, but I think DCCP needs a "new" socket type
anyway.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net

--
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