[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <860B3B8A-1322-478E-8BF9-C5A3444227F7@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:06:49 +0000
From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
"jmeneghi@...hat.com" <jmeneghi@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net/handshake: Add support for PF_HANDSHAKE
> On Jan 28, 2023, at 3:32 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:02:22 -0500 Chuck Lever wrote:
>> I've designed a way to pass a connected kernel socket endpoint to
>> user space using the traditional listen/accept mechanism. accept(2)
>> gives us a well-worn building block that can materialize a connected
>> socket endpoint as a file descriptor in a specific user space
>> process. Like any open socket descriptor, the accepted FD can then
>> be passed to a library such as GnuTLS to perform a TLS handshake.
>
> I can't bring myself to like the new socket family layer.
poll/listen/accept is the simplest and most natural way of
materializing a socket endpoint in a process that I can think
of. It's a well-understood building block. What specifically
is troubling you about it?
> I'd like a second opinion on that, if anyone within netdev
> is willing to share..
Hopefully that opinion comes with an alternative way of getting
a connected kernel socket endpoint up to user space without
race issues.
We need to make some progress on this. If you don't have a
technical objection, I think we should go with this with the
idea that eventually something more palatable will come along
to replace it.
--
Chuck Lever
Powered by blists - more mailing lists