From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B612D45C14 for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 18:09:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716919765; cv=none; b=dilS2F1Aa4Kx5t13T8LDXeuUEioo+p2IXnQUAH9Zj1zcjxKFXeo622IGtY1uBqZuVtmQ2zkKoXk/Nn1ZlrVyyFftqc+JbKi/5AcJhgcAzC2gz3YW8wHWhBL6wx5bZe8rVe+CYxJ10UIUZsBIUonDCEU0dceVbicTjAu/mr3u4D8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716919765; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KD34xdxulxYzo/NvLrf29jnx01FFfXdsTgBJFdiXof8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sgt5GNbExUsJIVyg4zuKOOm4iyH7q1o3kc+uCa3cilPAFD//mIAEtCyDx2LWO193IAOUc/Wva6mbMSNTybD6eXwiaOUVx8q00lJJeDq0tsv62wYVZ711/1HM7hreYEVPnJbJZ6aFswR6yvsvl9X2WthrumdoJp6irwb5sy11F4Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZmIe6gV0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZmIe6gV0" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04438C3277B; Tue, 28 May 2024 18:09:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1716919765; bh=KD34xdxulxYzo/NvLrf29jnx01FFfXdsTgBJFdiXof8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZmIe6gV0Pz6RcH1//xpQqK65TMyi0uQVTUuU+r+3nuuVfpoVUoRPygKsZbs3fCpt+ 5CQWRNNuseLM9iI4OOqFt/mOr7KfaJuOSu1dnNVeD2L4/q4qR3yZhRTobSNkpyCf0n IkghrG2sOHVarTREeY0CFFv8ClBz6+qfbfA5YR3n5mJOOGFTsbeeY3NUiLFxh35S1b or3tyk9unSEk+59CjrO83JxB+b8BnG4Wo48GqcCwujcApx1dc4+JWDQyPLmDiipS8d C3Y+wUcZcR7alF7AFl/sanEphhtKXxZ4e8y5WMDpHDW2RQozEdM74h0Er8HH2qhGW+ V7aF2eEEsX7SQ== Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:09:24 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Paul Wouters Cc: Willem de Bruijn , Steffen Klassert , netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, borisp@nvidia.com, gal@nvidia.com, cratiu@nvidia.com, rrameshbabu@nvidia.com, tariqt@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] add basic PSP encryption for TCP connections Message-ID: <20240528110924.0f131264@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <81646030-00b9-10ad-abed-a7a78f0c511e@nohats.ca> References: <1da873f4-7d9b-1bb3-0c44-0c04923bf3ab@nohats.ca> <6655e0eecb33a_29176f29427@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> <81646030-00b9-10ad-abed-a7a78f0c511e@nohats.ca> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Paul Wouters wrote: > > It makes sense to work to get to an IETF standard protocol that > > captures the same benefits. But that is independent from enabling what > > is already implemented. > > How many different packet encryption methods should the linux kernel > have? There are good reasons to go through standard bodies. Doing your > own thing and then saying "but we did it already" to me does not feel > like a strong argument. That's how we got wireguard with all of its > issues of being written for a single use case, and now being unfit for > generic use cases. Now you made me curious. What's wrong with wireguard? I have only heard good things.