netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] kcm: Kernel Connection Multiplexor (KCM)

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: <20151124.172547.672210919260359472.davem@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:25:47 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...hat.com>
To:	fw@...len.de
Cc:	tom@...bertland.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, davejwatson@...com,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] kcm: Kernel Connection Multiplexor (KCM)

From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:22:42 +0100

> Yes, I get that point, but I maintain that KCM is a strange workaround
> for bad userspace design.

I fundamentally disagree with you.

And even if I didn't, I would be remiss to completely dismiss the
difficulty in changing existing protocols and existing large scale
implementations of them.  If we can facilitate them somehow then
I see nothing wrong with that.

Neither you nor Hannes have made a strong enough argument for me
to consider Tom's work not suitable for upstream.

Have you even looked at the example userspace use case he referenced
and considered the constraints under which it operates?  I seriously
doubt you did.
--
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