netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net/handshake: Create a NETLINK service for handling handshake requests

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: <1B1298B2-C884-48BA-A4E8-BBB95C42786B@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:04:34 +0000
From:   Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
        "jmeneghi@...hat.com" <jmeneghi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net/handshake: Create a NETLINK service for
 handling handshake requests



> On Feb 10, 2023, at 1:09 PM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:17:28 +0000 Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>> I don't think it does, necessarily. But neither does it seem
>>>> to add any value (for this use case). <shrug>  
>>> 
>>> Our default is to go for generic netlink, it's where we invest most time
>>> in terms of infrastructure.  
>> 
>> v2 of the series used generic netlink for the downcall piece.
>> I can convert back to using generic netlink for v4 of the
>> series.
> 
> Would you be able to write the spec for it? I'm happy to help with that
> as I mentioned.

I'm coming from an RPC background, we usually do start from an
XDR protocol specification. So, I'm used to that, and it might
give us some new ideas about protocol correctness or
simplification.

Point me to a sample spec or maybe a language reference and we
can discuss it further.


> Perhaps you have the user space already hand-written
> here but in case the mechanism/family gets reused it'd be sad if people
> had to hand write bindings for other programming languages.

Yes, the user space implementation is currently hand-written C,
but it can easily be converted to machine-generated if you have
a favorite tool to do that.


--
Chuck Lever