netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy

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: <CACby=pnLJRawb40Ym1_85+8P7vmkwLJqfsv=bYyeHHa8KWPwNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:04:14 -0700
From:   Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy

Hi Tom

On 29 June 2017 at 11:27, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> This is raw, minimally tested, and error hanlding needs work. Posting
> as RFC to get feedback on the design...
>
> Sidecar proxies are becoming quite popular on server as a means to
> perform layer 7 processing on application data as it is sent. Such
> sidecars are used for SSL proxies, application firewalls, and L7
> load balancers. While these proxies provide nice functionality,
> their performance is obviously terrible since all the data needs
> to take an extra hop though userspace.

I really appreciate this work. It would have been nice to at least
attribute me in some way as this is exactly what I presented at
Netconf 2017 [0].

I'm also wondering why this is not built on top of KCM which you
suggested to use when we discussed this.

[0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dwSKSBGpUHD3WO5xxzZWj8awV_-xL-oYhvqQMOBhhtk/edit#slide=id.g203aae413f_0_0