Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:15:00 +0000 (UTC) From: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP loopback socket fusing Message-ID: <slrni968s3.1ctl.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> References: <4C8E0C1E.2020707@networx.ch> <20100915151632.E31898@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4C90EAB7.2000902@networx.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Andre Oppermann! On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:48:07 +0200; Andre Oppermann wrote about 'Re: TCP loopback socket fusing': >> 3 If properly doing this for TCP, we should probably also do it for >> other protocols. > UNIX domain sockets already do this. This implementation is particular > for TCP and only touches the protocol specific parts. It's not done at > the socket layer. For UDP it's not that easy to do as most UDP connections > are one-off packets and no permanent binding between two sockets exists. > For SCTP I don't know. From glancing over the code it seems they have, > at least partially, their own socket buffer code. How difficult a fused > socket there would be I can't say. This hack is for TCP only, if an application author chooses a non-TCP protocol for loopback, then he is already aware of Unix domain sockets and have reasons for protocol he have chosen to be not PF_LOCAL. And hacking those protocols adds another piece of complexity to maintenance. In fact, care should be taken to consider non-fusing way of operation as primary because packetization is useful not just for filtering SYNs. BTW, I have heard once man needing something like tcpdump for Unix socket. Is something convenient like this is possible?.. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrni968s3.1ctl.vadim_nuclight>