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: <4C2231B5.10401@athenacr.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:09:25 -0400 From: Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com> To: Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT On 06/23/2010 03:54 AM, Alexander Clouter wrote: > Hi, > > Tim Prepscius <timprepscius@...il.com> wrote: >> >> Is SO_REUSEPORT available 2.6.ish - (or any version)? >> I've been searching for a conclusive answer to this question and can't >> find it. >> > That will be a no then: > ---- > alex@...k:~$ grep SO_REUSEPORT -r /usr/src/linux-2.6-stable/include/ > /usr/src/linux-2.6-stable/include/asm-generic/socket.h:/* To add :#define SO_REUSEPORT 15 */ > ---- > >> (yes I know of SO_REUSEADDR, and I know the difference between this >> and *PORT, and yes I know that I *definitely* need SO_REUSEPORT, no, >> I'm unconcerned this may/may not be part of a "standard," yes I know >> it is implemented differently on different systems, yes I know there >> may be security problems, but no, I don't care about this.) >> > This really sounds like the sort of thing (for TCP/SCTP) where the > 'master' process would maintain the listening socket and upon accept() > you would fork() or pass the file descriptor off to a thread. This > would make SO_REUSEPORT un-necessary and also your code would be > portable. > > If you are doing things with UDP (or another datagram-esque stream) then > your master listener could pass off the incoming packets to > threads/processes trivially. > > Of course this depends on what you are doing, but my opinion is that the > functionality has been unneeded so far by people in the kernel, so *I* > must be doing something wrong ;) Tom Herbert gave a pretty great description of why you might want this functionality in his original patch submission: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/4/19/6274993 If you follow that thread though, there wasn't consensus about the best architecture & API for it, and nothing has made it yet. I'm adding netdev to the cc, AFAIK it's the place for discussing stuff like this. -- 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