From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@gnu.org>
To: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>, Marc Boucher <marc@mbsi.ca>
Cc: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:27:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021107152758.GB23858@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0211070834130.11358-100000@shell.cyberus.ca>
Hi,
netfilter, yeah, sure, 'could have', but please.
'Make it a netfilter module' is generally what people say when
they are confronted with a feature they don't like.
There was a thread about this in private mail round April this year,
in which some good points were raised.
- From the kernel point of view, doing it in netfilter would require
more state tracking and access to the socket hashes and would be
uglier.
- From the application writer's point of view, doing it via a socket
option is much more intuitive, since this flag is really a socket
property, than doing it via some extra API which would make it way
too difficult/complex to use in existing apps.
It's worth noting that selective TCP connection acceptance was
also intended to be implemented as a socket option by the original
BSD developers. See http://www.kohala.com/start/vanj.94jun27.txt
(link thanks to Marc Boucher).
>From the accept(2) man page on Red Hat Linux (again thanks to Marc
Boucher):
For certain protocols which require an explicit confirmation, such as
DECNet, accept can be thought of as merely dequeuing the next connec-
tion request and not implying confirmation. Confirmation can be
implied by a normal read or write on the new file descriptor, and
rejection can be implied by closing the new socket. Currently only DEC-
Net has these semantics on Linux.
cheers,
Lennert
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:36:28AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> Could you not have used netfilter for this? You have the app
> sending controls to add netfilter policies and delete them when not
> needed.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-07 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-07 9:32 [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation Lennert Buytenhek
2002-11-07 11:27 ` bert hubert
2002-11-07 12:09 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2002-11-07 13:36 ` jamal
2002-11-07 15:27 ` Lennert Buytenhek [this message]
2002-11-08 11:22 ` jamal
2002-11-08 11:52 ` bert hubert
2002-11-08 11:56 ` Marc Boucher
2002-11-08 18:28 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2002-11-07 13:49 ` bert hubert
2002-11-07 14:30 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2002-11-07 16:24 ` bert hubert
2003-08-14 13:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2003-08-25 11:09 ` Harald Welte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021107152758.GB23858@gnu.org \
--to=buytenh@gnu.org \
--cc=ahu@ds9a.nl \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=marc@mbsi.ca \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.