netdev - Re: AF_BUS socket address family

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: <20120629231236.GA28593@mail.collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:12:37 +0100
From:	Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AF_BUS socket address family

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 03:36:56PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
> There is no extensive text describing why using IPv4 for this cannot
> be done.  I can almost bet that nobody really, honestly, tried.
> 

I can assure you that the team has tried no fewer than six differing
approaches, including using IP and attempting to bend several of the
existing address families.

> Basically this means all of our feedback from the last time we had
> discussions on kernel IPC for DBUS are being completely ignored.

Absolutely not, we listened hard and did extensive research, please do
not ascribe thoughtlessness to our actions. Certainly I would not
presume to waste your time and present something which has not been
thoroughly considered.

I had hoped you would have at least read the opening list where I
outlined the underlying features which explain why none of the
existing IPC match the requirements.

Firstly it is intended is an interprocess mechanism and not to rely on
a configured IP system, indeed one of its primary usages is to
provide mechanism for various tools to set up IP networking.

Leaving that aside the requirements for multicast, strict ordering, fd
passing and credential passing are simply not available in any other
single transport. It was made plain to us that AF_UNIX would not be
expanded to encompass multicast so we are left with adding AF_BUS.

If we are wrong I hope you will explain to me how we can achieve fd and
credential passing to multicast groups within existing protocols.

> 
> Therefore, I will completely ignore this patch submission.
> 

I do hope you will reconsider, or at least educate us appropriately. 
I understand you are a busy maintainer and appreciate your time in this matter.

Best regards
--
Vincent Sanders <vincent.sanders@...labora.co.uk>
--
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