Re: [WireGuard] Can WireGuard be adopted for older kernels?

["Jason A. Donenfeld" <artyom.h31@gmail.com>]

I'm trying to run WireGuard on a single board computer (ODROID C1).=20
It's not a problem to modify a board's kernel code, however the chip=20
manufacturer (Amlogic) is focused on Android and will very unlikely=20
release a newer kernel for this board.

A userspace version is not an option because of a huge performance=20
penalty of userspace tunnels. It will certainly be slower than IPsec,=20
and performance is especially important for embedded devices.

A small offtopic: why have you chosen to use Rust for a userspace=20
version and not C or C++? In the latter case you have an option to=20
reuse some code from the kernel version.

=D0=92 =D0=92=D1=82=D0=BE=D1=80=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 5 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BB. 20=
16 =D0=B2 1:10 , Jason A. Donenfeld=20
<Jason@zx2c4.com> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
> Hey Artyom,
>=20
> I face the same problem as you. I have an Edge Router Lite, and I'd
> really love to run WireGuard on it, but their proprietary kernel is
> stuck at 3.10. Major bummer.
>=20
> The current plan is to write a userspace version in Rust, that will be
> cross platform and work well on old kernels. No timeline on that
> though.
>=20
> However, I did at one point run wireguard on really old kernels during
> testing. That was before I started using the very nice udp_tunnel_*
> library inside newer kernels, which then forced the dependency. But
> when I did do this, it worked. Maybe I'll dust off the ugly old code
> and hack something horrible together to work on old kernels. On the
> other hand, this might not really be a great use of time... I don't
> know.
>=20
> What system are you trying to run it on? Maybe if it's the same as me,
> we can both poke Ubnt together to upgrade their kernel...
>=20
> Jason
=