From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 11:36:07 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2124A16A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from phantom.cris.net (phantom.cris.net [212.110.130.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE7E43D1D for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ml@FreeBSD.org.ua) Received: from phantom.cris.net (ml@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j1ABe6r8073400; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:40:06 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ml@FreeBSD.org.ua) Received: (from ml@localhost) by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j1ABe6AM073399; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:40:06 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ml) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:40:06 +0200 From: Alexey Zelkin To: Max Laier Message-ID: <20050210114006.GB73291@phantom.cris.net> References: <20050207.182021.68162131.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> <200502071319.57331.max@love2party.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200502071319.57331.max@love2party.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: CHOI Junho Subject: Re: kernel mode httpd/ftpd for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:07 -0000 On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:19:45PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > On Monday 07 February 2005 10:20, CHOI Junho wrote: > > Anyone knows about kernel-mode httpd/ftpd for FreeBSD? (just like tux > > of linuxI searched several times but failed. > > No there is not. In my humble opinion it's a *really* bad idea to implement > something that vulnarable to external attacks and buffer overflows inside the > kernel. The often claimed performance benefit can as easily be achieved with > accept filters (see esp. accf_http(9)) and kqueue(9). There is really no > need to put this into the kernel. Why not ? Having small and reliable kernel http server able to handle static content only and limited functionality, would be useful in many cases.