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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 5 Sep 2021 18:38:11 -0500
From:   Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:     Eric Curtin <ericcurtin17@...il.com>
Cc:     vfedorenko@...ek.ru,
        Alexander Ahring Oder Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: quic in-kernel implementation?

I am interested in this as well (encrypted and non-encrypted QUIC
cases in kernel)

Short term given that Windows is the only server than currently
support it - testing probably needs to be done via upcall with
SMB3.1.1 Linux mounts to Windows, and once that is verified to work
(as a baseline for comparison) - start work on the kernel QUIC driver

But for the initial point of comparison - would be helpful to have
example code that exposes a kernel "socket like" ("sock_sendmsg") API
for upcall ... and once we verify that that works start the work on
the kernel driver

On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 9:10 AM Eric Curtin <ericcurtin17@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Great idea, something I have been hoping to see in the kernel for a
> while. How has your implementation been going @Vadim? I'd be interested
> in a non-encrypted version of QUIC also in the kernel (may not be
> supported in the spec but possible and I think worth having), would be
> useful for cases where you don't care about network ossification
> protection or data-in-transit encryption, say a trusted local network
> where you would prefer the performance and reliability advantages of
> going plaintext and you don't want to figure out how to deploy
> certififcates. Something that could be used as a straight swap for a
> TCP socket.
>


-- 
Thanks,

Steve