[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1226565894.13986.5.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:44:54 +0100
From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@...riknordstrom.net>
To: Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@...abit.hu>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>,
Andrey Luzgin <andrey@...msw.com>, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tproxy] udp + tproxy
On tor, 2008-11-13 at 08:25 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> PS: I was talking to Patrick McHardy whether to send the udp_accept()
> patch for kernel inclusion, he said it might be worth trying, however he
> was not completely sure it'd be integrated. So I didn't push it so far.
I second this, but also think that it will see some initial resistance.
I guess the main complaint (assuming code is in good shale) will be that
UDP does not have any sender verification, which means it's very easy to
flood the kernel with UDP "connection requests". But on the other hand
there is also no SYN_RECV or FIN_WAIT/TIME_WAIT states which may hold up
things beyond CPU processing speed so this is not by far as big problem
to deal with as in the TCP case..
Regards
Henrik
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (308 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists