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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).