Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy

On 29 June 2017 at 16:21, Tom Herbert [off-list ref] wrote:

I think the main part of that discussion was around stream parser
which is needed for message delineation. For a 1:1 proxy,  KCM is
probably overkill (the whole KCM data path and lock becomes
superfluous). Also, there's no concept of creating a whole message
before routing it, in the 1:1 case we should let the message pass
through once it's cleared by the filter (this is the strparser change
I referred to). As I mentioned, for L7 load balancing we would want a
multiplexor probably also M:N, but the structure is different since
there's still no user facing sockets, they're all TCP for instance.
IMO, the 1:1 proxy case is compelling to solve in itself...

I see. I was definitely thinking m:n. We should definitely evaluate
whether it makes sense to have a specific 1:1 implementation if we
need m:n anyway. For L7 LB, m:n seems obvious as a particular L4
connection may act as a transport for multiple requests bidirectional.
KCM looks like a good starting point for that.

When I talked about enqueueing entire messages, the main concern is to
buffer up the payload after the TLS handshake to the point to where a
forwarding decision can be made. I would definitely not advocate to
buffer entire messages before starting to forward.