netdev - Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack

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: <20100329214321.GI20695@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:43:21 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:00:57AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:33:07PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Here is a pgm.7 manpage describing how the socket API could look like for
> > > a PGM implementation.
> > >
> > > I dumped the RM_* based socket options from the other OS since most of the
> > > options were unusable.
> >
> > I did a quick read and the manpage/interface seem reasonable to me.
> 
> Thanks. I will then proceed to get a patch out that implements the
> network environment. Then we can plug the openpgm logic in there.

You might still need some reviewing from network maintainers.

> 
> > You changed the parameter struct fields to lower case. While
> > that looks definitely more Linuxy than before does it mean programs
> > have to #ifdef this? It might be good idea to have at least some
> > optional compat header that #defines.
> 
> The socket API will be completely different. The basic handling of the
> sockets is the same (binding, listening, connecting). There is no way of
> mapping M$ socket options to Linux socket options with the approach that
> I proposed in the manpage. The stats structure is different too since some
> key elements were missing.

Ok.

> 
> What users are there of the M$ api? I have seen vendors supplying their
> own pgm implementation (guess due to bit rot in the old M$
> implementation).

I don't know, it was just a general consideration.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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