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: <20151124152744.GB20972@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:27:44 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	tom@...bertland.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, davewatson@...com,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] kcm: Kernel Connection Multiplexor (KCM)

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:33:44 -0800
> 
> > The TCP PSH flag is not defined for message delineation (neither is
> > urgent pointer). We can't change that (many people have tried to add
> > message semantics to TCP protocol but have always failed miserably).
>
> Agreed.
>
> My only gripe with kcm right now is a lack of a native sendpage.

Aside from Hannes comment -- KCM seems to be tied to the TLS work, i.e.
I have the impression that KCM without ability to do TLS in the kernel
is pretty much useless for whatever use case Tom has in mind.

And that ktls thing just gives me the creeps.

For KCM itself I don't even get the use case -- its in the 'yeah, you
can do that, but... why?' category 8-/
--
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