From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Feb 18 19:20:32 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0963C2437E7 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:20:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacybsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (mail-lj1-f194.google.com [209.85.208.194]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48MW0H1Zbvz48lr for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:20:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacybsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id q8so24289664ljb.2 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:20:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=REAfKHp1l2u1Ru+fmjWb/k7/y+aj2ZUso3Ci7NDBWeM=; b=eAaJe221h6t94lGiIN59LmNoY7OO3qPhU7/y6LC/hXgRoUWZh6KrA5xrXXlYBU6t24 Dfpz9Ac3lAAO9HkOCTzTdYzpfl6VzRkXhU2+L0JZY1el/dYcFRlJSJy8fFbVxCr2yARj jCCqe/jZH9np3R7RAxVn5eaL1Yku2DOeMXrj4LWIv7F1D3nzdPpZo6T1G+0ewj68wXMB 2Bj9Idf4h1+CzFQ6NSXBoIWqh3/S3LArJgDRXLubam4tbczxCHvUb4jT7YSJdU0BuXWD 4aPSWAWSKsOEfUI7aEgE7vssjzfD33T3TUVE1JvwEe+D0dvj9V+jxqkfjouvzB2zHPP6 2oGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVntQgg/0VBKR3GeHfss+K5rkLYCFQJ89MYBFVrACdWjZiSjdS0 US2gHWVdUv7gQLPSsX262sR/y9fxSMQJt+c5VKUb4sHB X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqws8sqUuDRRwasLGVEstdRFh0+ZQAi8ZYfvSLqCMhhIVORdyVM2LSDoj3cRrcHOxjH3jOTNULr0L4ayURA7BeM= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8651:: with SMTP id i17mr14086918ljj.121.1582053628675; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:20:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "K. Macy" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:20:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: wireguard implementation in progress with zero coordination or communication with wireguard project? can we help? To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48MW0H1Zbvz48lr X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kmacybsd@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.194 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kmacybsd@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.93 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; IP_SCORE(-0.93)[ip: (0.09), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.00), asn: 15169(-1.68), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[194.208.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[kmacy@freebsd.org,kmacybsd@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[194.208.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.17]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[kmacy@freebsd.org,kmacybsd@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:20:32 -0000 On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:09 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote= : > > Hey K, > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:33 PM K. Macy wrote: > > I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I can=E2=80=99t count the number of n= ascent kernel projects that have come up in discussion over the years and u= ltimately come to nothing. > > Do you mean that the FreeBSD one might not work out, or you're > skeptical that the OpenBSD one will? Either way, I'm pretty determined > to bring them both -- FreeBSD (with you) and the OpenBSD one -- across > the finish line as best as we can. I'm comfortable that these will both come to fruition. However, if you look on the mailing lists you'll see people saying they'll do X, and X never happens. If you look at the git and svn project branches you will see that even the best developers have lots of ideas that never make it over the finish line. > > > I started by getting the OpenBSD bits to build on FreeBSD. However, the= implementation in Open is not really a very good semantic match for FreeBS= D. So I often have to check what the Linux one is doing as well and sometim= es the NetBSD one. Ultimately, apart from struct definitions, very little c= ode will be shared between the platforms. > > Yea, that's what I initially had thought, but then for the OpenBSD > stuff we were actually able to take a lot from the Linux > implementation in the end, especially with regards to timer semantic > and key exchange flow. If it winds up helping, we can do the same > where it's useful for FreeBSD and in the end we'll relicense what we > need to to {1,2,3,28}-clause BSD, since I imagine FreeBSD doesn't want > GPL stuff. > That would be helpful. > > I don=E2=80=99t see a whole lot of benefit to coordination until I can = configure a Wireguard interface and there is at least the possibility of pa= ssing packets. > > I think there will be quite some benefit for coordinating early on and > talking through some design challenges. We've now worked through this > exercise several times on a few platforms an might be able to help out > quite a bit. Are you on IRC? If so, poke me on Freenode -- I'm zx2c4 > -- where we have a channel of people who have implemented this before > and are eager and excited to help out. This is a background task, so I can chime in on the weekends. Cheers.