https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182151 --- Comment #62 from Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Daiki Ueno from comment #61) > On a slightly different note, if the netlink interface is not fixed, it > might make things simpler to use the gnutls_handshake* API > (gnutls_handshake_write and gnutls_handshake_set_read_function) and drive > the handshake state machine directly. That way the record protocol > (regardless of TLS or DTLS) could be sorely handled in the kernel. I think there is some flexibility in the netlink API, and we are interested in supporting DTLS eventually (as well as handling QUICv1 handshakes). The first two consumers (RPC and NVMe/TCP) needed TLSv1.3 so that is what we started with. We have a mailing list: <kernel-tls-handshake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> You are very welcome to post patches or suggestions there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182151 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202182151%23c62 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
