On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:53:20PM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote: > The aim of "NUSE" from applications point of view would be to be > indistinguishable from kernel implemented services. > > What would this require from the service hook side ? > - Socket read and write can be trivialishly done > like a pipe in between processes > - Somehow pass ancilliary data for: > - socket, socketpair > - connect, bind > - accept > - listen > - getpeername, getsockname > - sendto, send > - recvfrom, revc > - setsockopt, getsockopt > - poll / epoll ?
It is certainly possible to do this by implementing your own socket family. I did such a thing as infrastructure for talking to network processors in a former life. In that case the socket code was talking to other kernel code, but getting it to coordinate w/ userland is largely a SMOP. You might consider using (generic?) netlink for your backend communications to the userland daemon. In addition, there might be other kernel extensions required (e.g. dynamic socket family allocation?). > Death of the protocol engine process must also destroy all existing > sockets of the served protocol type, and refuse to generate any new > sockets of the type. That's up to you (or whomever implements the kernel code). > The first protocol that I have in mind to implement on top of this service > does not need very much of local sockets. > (It is called "STANAG-5066" - radio data communication on HF frequencies. > Specification is written by NATO, thus "STANAG", but my use plans for it > are more along the AX.25 ham-radio things.) Nifty. :-) John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
