From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: dpx.infinity@gmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1378453e for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 21cb5b7b for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id j90so74383000lfk.2 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Message-ID: <1489486302.24652.2.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Rust implementation status From: Vladimir Matveev To: Sascha Grunert Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:11:42 +0400 In-Reply-To: <80387df1-3237-43a0-adaa-09ffeebbef01@me.com> References: <80387df1-3237-43a0-adaa-09ffeebbef01@me.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I just read that there is another WireGuard Rust implementation here: > https://github.com/sopium/titun/tree/wg I see. I think that joining efforts would be nice, but, if I understand it correctly, that project is intended to provide a different interface, using WG as an underlying protocol. I personally think that it would be better to separate these layers, providing the connectivity daemon and higher-level features separately. I may be wrong though, it is quite possible that the combined approach will be more useful. > This sounds great, I or we can go forward with that crate if it > provides > better error handling. I have actually submitted a pull request to the github repository already which does exactly that :) > I already thought about this but the project owner wants to have a > single > place where the sources lives. But mirroring code is possible as > well, > like we already do on github: https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard- > rs This is understandable, I think. But still, maybe doing development on Github and publishing the contents of the repository there to the main repository is possible? I believe that taking advantage of the issue tracker and the pull requests system there would be very useful and convenient. I actually suggest putting TODO items as issues on Github as the first step, so it would be clear what should be done next. > > 4. I think it would be quite idiomatic to split the interface to WG > > into a separate library crate, which the main binary would depend > > on. > > Yeah sounds reasonable. Lets look forward to this. There are several ways to do it, actually. If you don't mind, I may send a pull request which implements one later. > The actual implementation follows strictly this guideline: > https://www.wireguard.io/xplatform/ > Usually I agree in letting the daemon stuff to systemd or something > else, > but we want to avoid fragmentation, that different implementations > behave > differently. I'm pretty sure that when WG get popuar, differences in behavior will be unavoidable. Also, since all of the userspace WG projects seem to be in quite a flux state now, maybe it is worth considering to change these guidelines when it is not late yet? > > 6. Have you decided which cryptographic libraries you are going to > > use? > > Or are you planning to implement the necessary primitives in this > > project? > > Not now, there is no such decision done yet. > > I am looking really further for your contribution, since it is > currently a "one man show", > which is pretty though for me. > > I know that a main development on GitHub would spread the project > better into the > open source world. Maybe we need to discuss this point at some time. > > Best regards, > Sascha > > Am 13. März 2017 um 00:10 schrieb Vladimir Matveev l.com>: > > > Hi, Sascha, > > > > I'm a Rust programmer, and I really like that there is now a Rust > > implementation of the Wireguard daemon! > > > > I have a few question and suggestions. > > > > 1. Instead of hand-rolling your own error management > > implementation, > > consider using the error-chain[1] crate. It seems that many popular > > crates now depend on it[2]. It would make the Wireguard crate more > > interoperable and more readable for those who is already accustomed > > with error-chain. On the first glance, your custom implementation > > resembles error-chain very much. > > > > 2. Consider publishing the project on some hosting service like > > Github > > or Gitlab or something else, which would allow easier community > > participation. I would very much like to help with its development, > > but > > I never participated in any mailing-list based projects and I > > personally find it very inconvenient, and I think that the pull > > requests mechanics is greatly superior. Also, almost all Rust > > ecosystem > > lives on Github, so lots of Rust developers are quite accustomed to > > it, > > and you will most certainly attract more contributors that way. > > > > 3. On a related note, consider publishing a link to this project in > > the > > Rust community, in particular, in the Rust subreddit[3] and maybe > > on > > The Rust Programming Language Forum[4]. I think that many people > > there > > will be very interested in a project like this, because it is > > network- > > related, it is pretty low level, and it will probably depend on the > > current "hot" crates in the Rust community, like tokio. > > > > 4. I think it would be quite idiomatic to split the interface to WG > > into a separate library crate, which the main binary would depend > > on. > > > > 5. I wonder, is it really necessary to perform daemonization > > manually? > > As far as I understand the current situation in the daemon writing > > and > > init systems, it is expected that daemons won't fork themselves and > > will continue working in foreground when started, while service > > management systems like systemd or launchd will take care of > > keeping > > them alive, collecting logs, starting, restarting, etc. Daemonizing > > also seems quite unidiomatic on Windows. I also personally think > > that > > avoiding manual daemonization will make the code and architecture > > simpler and more manageable. > > > > 6. Have you decided which cryptographic libraries you are going to > > use? > > Or are you planning to implement the necessary primitives in this > > project? > > > > I'm really looking forward to the further development of this > > project, > > and I'm willing to participate in it if you're looking for > > contributors. > > > > Best regards, > > Vladimir > > > > [1]: https://crates.io/crates/error-chain > > [2]: https://crates.io/crates/error-chain/reverse_dependencies > > [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/ > > [4]: https://users.rust-lang.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > > WireGuard mailing list > > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard