OpenBSD kernel implementation

Jason A. Donenfeld Jason at
Tue Dec 11 16:29:40 CET 2018

Hi Matt,

Exciting to see you working on this. However, I'm afraid the
implementation you describe sounds deeply flawed and kind of misses
the point of WireGuard.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:24 PM Matt wrote:
 > Currently, I want to take all the code that doesn't need to be in the
 > kernel and move it to userspace, which is essentially the handshake
 > code, timeout timers and state machine functions. What is left is
 > essentially the transport function (IPSEC transform equivalent),
 > peforming simple crypto on incoming/outgoing packets. This design is
 > somewhat similar to how IPSEC is currently implemented in OpenBSD. I
 > believe this is a reasonable approach, but welcome comments on things I
 > may not have considered.

Do not do this. This is entirely unacceptable and wholly contrary to
the design approach of WireGuard. The transport layer and handshake
layer exist on the same state machine, and I designed the handshake
specifically to be extremely simple and implementable in kernel space.
I'm happy to help you clean up your current approach -- which seems
nicer and closer to the goal -- but your proposed separated approach
is really deeply flawed, and overly complex. Do not make this mistake.

Rather, let's clean up your current WIP together. If you're on IRC,
I'm happy to discuss with you there (I'm zx2c4 on Freenode) and we can
get this into shape.


More information about the WireGuard mailing list