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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151124224508.GE23215@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:45:08 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...hat.com>
Cc:	fw@...len.de, 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)

David Miller <davem@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough.  Still, I do not see how what KCM intends to do
can be achieved while at the same time imposing some upper bound on
the amount of kernel memory we can allocate globally and per socket.

Once such limit would be enforced the question becomes how the kernel
could handle such an error other than via close of the underlying tcp
connection.

Not adding any limit is not a good idea in my opinion.
--
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