Re: [PATCH net-next v12 11/22] ovpn: implement TCP transport

[Antonio Quartulli <antonio@openvpn.net>]

On 09/12/2024 11:46, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> Thank you for working on this, and sharing your work here!
> 
> On 05/12/2024 00:09, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> On 04/12/2024 23:52, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>> Paolo,
>>>
>>> On 04/12/2024 12:15, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +        mutex_lock(&tcp6_prot_mutex);
>>>>>> +        if (!ovpn_tcp6_prot.recvmsg)
>>>>>> +            ovpn_tcp_build_protos(&ovpn_tcp6_prot, &ovpn_tcp6_ops,
>>>>>> +                          sock->sk->sk_prot,
>>>>>> +                          sock->sk->sk_socket->ops);
>>>>>> +        mutex_unlock(&tcp6_prot_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks like an hack to avoid a build dependency on IPV6, I think
>>>>> the
>>>>> explicit
>>>>
>>>> I happily copied this approach from espintcp.c:espintcp_init_sk() :-D
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
>>>>>
>>>>> at init time should be preferable
>>>
>>> To get this done at init time I need inet6_stream_ops to be
>>> accessible, but it seems there is no EXPORT_SYMBOL() for this object.
>>>
>>> However, I see that mptcp/protocol.c is happily accessing it.
>>> Any clue how this is possible?
>>
>> I answer myself: mptcp is not tristate and it can only be compiled as
>> built-in.
> 
> Indeed, that's why.
> 
> Talking about MPTCP, by chance, do you plan to support it later on? :)

Hi Matthieu,

It is not on our current roadmap (TCP doesn't get much love in the VPN 
world), but I agree it could be an interesting option to explore!

I have to admit that I haven't played much with MPTCP myself yet, but I 
am more than happy to talk about potential advantages for the ovpn use case.

Cheers,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.