netdev - Re: Upstream Homa?

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:25:40 -0800
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Upstream Homa?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:42:35 -0800
John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu> wrote:

> Several people at the netdev conference asked me if I was working to
> upstream the Homa transport protocol into the kernel. I have assumed
> that this is premature, given that there is not yet significant usage of
> Homa, but they encouraged me to start a discussion about upstreaming
> with the netdev community.
> 
> So, I'm sending this message to ask for advice about (a) what state
> Homa needs to reach before it would be appropriate to upstream it,
> and, (b) if/when that time is reached, what is the right way to go about it.
> Homa currently has about 13K lines of code, which I assume is far too
> large for a single patch set; at the same time, it's hard to envision a
> manageable first patch set with enough functionality to be useful by itself.
> 
> -John-

There are lots of experimental protocols already in Linux.
The usual upstream problem areas are:
 - coding style

 - compatibility layers
   developers don't care about code to run on older versions or other OS.
   
 - user API
   once you define it hard to change, need to get it right

 - tests
   is there a way to make sure it works on all platforms

Heuristics and bug fixing are fine, in fact having a wider community
will help.