From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rodrigo Moya Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to AF_UNIX Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1330622294.5373.8.camel@megeve> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org" , "David.Laight@ACULAB.COM" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "javier@collabora.co.uk" , "lennart@poettering.net" , "kay.sievers@vrfy.org" , "alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk" , "bart.cerneels@collabora.co.uk" , "sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" To: Erik Hugne Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Erik On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 15:25 +0100, Erik Hugne wrote: > Hi > Have you considered using TIPC instead? > It already provides multicast messaging with guaranteed ordering, and reliable delivery (SOCK _RDM) > I didn't know about TIPC, so have been having a quick look over it, and have some questions about it: * since it's for cluster use, I guess it's based on AF_INET sockets? if so, see the messages from Luis Augusto and Javier about this breaking current D-Bus apps, that use fd passing, for out-of-band data * D-Bus works locally, with all processes on the same machine, but there are 2 buses (daemons), one for system-related interfaces, and one per user, so how would this work with TIPC. Can you create several clusters/networks (as in TIPC addressing semantics) on the same machine on the loopback device? * I installed tipcutils on my machine, and it asked me if I wanted to setup the machine as a TIPC node. Does this mean every machine needs to be setup as a TIPC node before any app makes use of it? That is, can I just create a AF_TIPC socket on this machine and just make it work without any further setup? * I guess it is easy to prevent any TIPC-enabled machine to get into the local communication channel, right? That is, what's the security mechanism for allowing local-only communications? I'll stop asking questions and have a deeper look at it :)