OpenBSD kernel implementation
ncon at mail.noconroy.net
Tue Dec 11 22:14:10 CET 2018
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 04:29:40PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 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.
I don't think I can (morally, or logically) oppose such an argument.
Perhaps I did get a bit too excited and off track.
> 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.
This sounds like a reasonable way forward.
More information about the WireGuard