From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 11:34:20 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 17EB416A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:34:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from phantom.cris.net (phantom.cris.net [212.110.130.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9754343D2D for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:34:18 +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 j1ABc2r8073357; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:38:02 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ml@FreeBSD.org.ua) Received: (from ml@localhost) by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j1ABbulW073356; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:37:56 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ml) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:37:56 +0200 From: Alexey Zelkin To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20050210113756.GA73291@phantom.cris.net> References: <20050207.182021.68162131.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> <200502071319.57331.max@love2party.net> <4208163A.8010607@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4208163A.8010607@elischer.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: Max Laier cc: CHOI Junho cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 11:34:20 -0000 hi, On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:30:34PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > 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. Two years ago I did some initial work (more proof of concept, than something for real use) in order to learn netgraph, but realworld issues forced me to switch to other areas. Actually all basic stuff was done, but it was very poor on performance and parallelism. > actually there is.. > it was written by ummm > umm > jpd I think.. (unless it was imp) > > but it is not released. Actually, as John said, it was not pure kernel server able to handle real traffic. It was something like stress testing helper tool.