From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480EA3B29E for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id e19-v6so3494367qtp.8 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:56:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OqbZ+tf/XsSu1/xEvvQ+cthSbDyYrg7viRa9Tc1CPew=; b=Ko2qrZsHp27YgIQFJHGMPAw5TZb1RdrJeqEsRZK22C42nDgi+QOqgK0kNV66mTp6qd fOl/lcuLE43/MSXHr358871osWijWJ36fwKS6Thj1TBt2AEjc1zZBq+J1dLQ0vm81tPj 72cFt/AkOLz6FAHRguAXdFOrX3V4Qh+ofvIJtMqxLQRhWiP2KMSKgfrVu1ZxS9yvL0rE jkA+GE9RwsVIcI+XTggKxWw/idu7qt45j1pIv50h9EGJyC3ZI29aEAs2PrS7GLMZU+gI BmlUU4NleVrKbwoIJvJwXIunauuJK3iHwA5RpBcIdIA+siCgbDjgx7OFBRqybR8GKjWW jCNA== 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=OqbZ+tf/XsSu1/xEvvQ+cthSbDyYrg7viRa9Tc1CPew=; b=OBoh7UOnnhQx0cF4iaC4TRXmOeDuwHVrvOPRpH9goMK6b8nm9xbd8llYd7tctePwKW RNz8RYcisTPmrtjsPNS49zMR6AY/Hve2fxkVl/Efj11zBLFOqPKcLaMKDsVgVAN0hzR/ /89nHP62kw0YgKQ9rA6o2gleTPNl35ioS92AObi2AC1uSRXiwq6v04RnGY9kFVDnQ/Ss JPpyGsnyubd/4B5AFDvX0w7R/nDe6HM4ndfmEm1+7IlE+3QJvATirXNFPh0kUGIEF2d+ 4hn7zmMr7hnMLjeBcVjugZ73xnGN6oEcxEiMDX/3U9q5xVf7DHP8Pntd7fmTc8MDzGAt rgwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHIuX9LoqxrIfgu/v0FUffwl2PzSStsm4i9TZOQ4MZW8saONMCu q5hk5gVaNv39dYHDH11QV6vyC8GQr0UCKNxU4cvA3w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeSol55jVy3cva1Cma+Hd1/tL6By4776LqAwFQCbKc81gy33LYUQwbYqyrtfwALkqkM4efxIy447BBSKiEWPwg= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c345:: with SMTP id j5-v6mr660814qvi.245.1533236198728; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:56:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180801.213753.1303803168352407122.davem@davemloft.net> <1533235277.205214909@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: <1533235277.205214909@apps.rackspace.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:56:59 -0700 Message-ID: To: dpreed@deepplum.com Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] linus vs wireguard X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 18:56:39 -0000 I note that I too really, really like wireguard. it's ~4000 lines of auditable code. ipsec is crypto-by-committee. It doesn't need to run in kernel space but in order to be speed competitive with ipsec, it has to. I share your deep concern about least privilege, and I'd dearly like a do-over in OS and cpu design, starting with a processor like the mill - or maybe a risc-v, if it can context switch fast enough. Without fast context/priv switch uKernels are hopeless. I just spent a few hugely frustrating days trying to code in and being frightened by, ebpf. While I hates it thus far, a mini-language of some sort suitable for hardware offloads seems useful. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM dpreed@deepplum.com w= rote: > > I don't like complexity invading the kernel, personally. But it's Linux's= monstrous kernel these days. We also seem to have user code being executed= in the kernel (eBPF), another very risky thing regarding security, especia= lly. > > The kernel mode of a system has incredible and universal power over the e= ntire system. That's why the Principle of Least Privilege, part of the secu= rity canon that has proven itself worthy over and over, is as important to = OS kernels as the End to End argument is to the Internet. > > But Linus, never a security expert himself, has become a celebrity, and t= herefore his bad ideas are brilliant by definition. > > As to the ugliness of IPSec, well, the Linux implementation might be ugly= , but its the goddamn standard. Fix the stupid implementation if that is th= e problem. > > Nope, not gonna happen. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Dave Taht" > Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:26pm > To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] linus vs wireguard > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Linus Torvalds > Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking > To: David Miller > Cc: Andrew Morton , Network Development > , Linux Kernel Mailing List > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:37 PM David Miller wrote: > > > > Fixes keep trickling in: > > Pulled. > > Btw, on an unrelated issue: I see that Jason actually made the pull > request to have wireguard included in the kernel. > > Can I just once again state my love for it and hope it gets merged > soon? Maybe the code isn't perfect, but I've skimmed it, and compared > to the horrors that are OpenVPN and IPSec, it's a work of art. > > Linus > > > -- > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619