151–157 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elsewhere in the thread, they talk about upstreaming some code into the kernel itself; so it has to be in C for that. That's my guess, anyway. (disabling std is standard in environments like this; and you still get libcore, which is a lot of stuff!)
What are the odds of getting Linus to approve of Rust? It would be the greatest thing ever. Imagine the impact on the C++ community.. You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed my point. Sure, every VPN solution can be turned into "proxy all internet traffic through there" with enough configuration. What I meant is that tptacek was talking about commercial/serious VPN as in corporate usage, not commercial as in "it takes money from anyone". You're talking about two completely different use cases with very different goals and potential issues.
You said that WireGuard was not "a real candidate for the case you're talking about", and I explained why it being (eventually) widely adopted for that case is both possible and desirable. I don't see much point in arguing over what tptacek meant.
Since this is a security-critical project, do you mind filling a CII Best Practices questionnaire? https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice work, but I'm wondering why does it have to be in kernel? Couldn't it still be fast and written in a safer than C language considering the security context? (Or we'll still need to get grsec in there... :) Cheers!
I suspect it has to be in kernel for efficiency reasons. Because applications access network devices through kernel interfaces; the kernel has to context switch and copy data to and from the userspace VPN process; This can be quite slow. On a microkernel system, the standard way of connecting to the network stack might be through direct shared memory; and on such a system you could manage to run the VPN in userspace…
Sorry for my English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a lawyer but in my eyes having a BSD/MIT license will also save you from a corporation "adopting" your technology and sue you afterwards for infringing a super vague patent of theirs... or something along the lines. If your work is in the public domain, then at least the corporations would have much harder time hijacking and wall-garden it, and the chances of them simply giving up are higher. Or so I hope. I…
Yeah, you're not a lawyer. This is nonsensical gibberish.
If I learned anything from those last 15 years is that they'll sue you if you don't agree the Moon is made of cheese if it suits their agenda.
So I remain cynical towards them. If they can hijack a good technology for their own profit, they will do it. I think we all knew that much at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a lawyer but in my eyes having a BSD/MIT license will also save you from a corporation "adopting" your technology and sue you afterwards for infringing a super vague patent of theirs... or something along the lines. If your work is in the public domain, then at least the corporations would have much harder time hijacking and wall-garden it, and the chances of them simply giving up are higher. Or so I hope. I…
is this really a thing?
I do hope I am very naively wrong. But history hasn't given us much comfort in this area so far.