netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to AF

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: <1330426059.2139.21.camel@megeve>
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:47:39 +0100
From:	Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo.moya@...labora.co.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk, javier@...labora.co.uk,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lennart@...ttering.net,
	kay.sievers@...y.org, alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk,
	bart.cerneels@...labora.co.uk, sjoerd.simons@...labora.co.uk,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to
 AF_UNIX

Hi David

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 14:05 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:00:06 +0100
> 
> > Primary for performance reasons. D-bus is an IPC system for processes in
> > the same machine so traversing the whole TCP/IP stack seems a little
> > overkill to me.
> 
> You haven't actually tested what the cost of this actually is, so what
> you're saying is mere speculation.  In many cases TCP/UDP over
> loopback is actually faster than AF_UNIX.
> 
you're right we haven't tested this, but because of the other points in
Javier's mail, which are the special semantics we need for this to fit
the D-Bus usage:

> - total order is guaranteed: If sender A sends a message before B,
then
> receiver C and D should both get message A first and then B.
> 
> - slow readers: dropping packets vs blocking the sender. Although
>   datagrams are not reliable on IP, datagrams on Unix sockets are
never
>   lost. So if one receiver has its buffer full the sender is blocked
> instead of dropping packets. That way we guarantee a reliable
> communication channel.
> 
> - multicast group acess control: controlling who can join the
multicast
> group.
> 
> - multicast on loopback is not supported: which means we have to use a
> NIC (i.e: eth0). 

Because of all of this, UDP/IP multicast wasn't even considered as an
option. We might be wrong in some/all of those, so could you please
comment on them to check if that's so?

thanks

--
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