netdev - Re: quic in-kernel implementation?

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: <CAK-6q+g8gsot9s0z8HcdA91_QZjWqML4WTfkgcJuF_ea+kRGUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:44:40 -0400
From:   Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
        Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@...e.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leif Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: quic in-kernel implementation?

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:48 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 15:33:49 -0700 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:03:16 -0400
> > > > With having the fuse-like socket before it should be trivial to switch
> > > > between the implementations.
> > >
> > > So a good starting point would be to have such a "fuse-like socket"
> > > component? What about having a simple example for that at first
> > > without having quic involved. The kernel calls some POSIX-like socket
> > > interface which triggers a communication to a user space application.
> > > This user space application will then map everything to a user space
> > > generated socket. This would be a map from socket struct
> > > "proto/proto_ops" to user space and vice versa. The kernel application
> > > probably can use the kernel_FOO() (e.g. kernel_recvmsg()) socket api
> > > directly then. Exactly like "fuse" as you mentioned just for sockets.
> > >
> > > I think two veth interfaces can help to test something like that,
> > > either with a "fuse-like socket" on the other end or an user space
> > > application. Just doing a ping-pong example.
> > >
> > > Afterwards we can look at how to replace the user generated socket
> > > application with any $LIBQUIC e.g. msquic implementation as second
> > > step.
> >
> > Socket state management is complex and timers etc in userspace are hard.
>
> +1 seeing the struggles fuse causes in storage land "fuse for sockets"
> is not an exciting temporary solution IMHO..

What about an in-kernel sunrpc client which forwards "in-kernel proxy
socket syscall functions" to a user server who executes those on a
user socket? Does this sound like a better approach?
Sure there may be more problems, but maybe we could try it with
something simple at first to discover all those problems.

- Alex