| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003220921110.15360@router.home> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:24:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andi@...stfloor.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/19/2010 02:53 PM, David Miller wrote: > > But I also don't consider what openpbm has to do right now to > > be all that much of a restriction. You need privileges to > > add the protocol to the kernel, you need privileges to run > > the userspace variant, there is no real difference. > > The real difference is if multiplex is needed between multiple > unprivileged users. It is needed. PGM ports exist and work similarly to UDP and TCP ports. PGM as provided by openpgm and other solutions avoids native PGM and instead uses PGM over UDP. But the routers do not support PGM over UDP in the same way as native PGM. So the NAK suppression and other advanced features available in Juniper and Cisco switches cannot be used. openpbm can work with the native PGM protocol via a raw socket but then one cannot run multiple processes communicating via different ports effectively. The fragmentation of packets and the assembly etc in user space is a pain. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists