Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

    Phoronix: WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

    As for WireGuard not making it into the Linux 5.2 kernel, the lead developer of this secure network tunnel explained in an email into Phoronix that it was due to his focus on getting the WireGuard Windows support in order. But as of today that initial Windows port is now available and he'll be returning to focusing on the Linux code...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dows-Pre-Alpha

  • #2
    ok, that explains why there wasn't much on the mailing list for the last release (that I found when I went looking for it this morning).

    I am looking forward to getting this in kernel!

    Comment


    • #3
      It does make sense to target the platform with the most users first.

      Narrator: It's not Linux.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
        It does make sense to target the platform with the most users first.

        Narrator: It's not Linux.
        How can you say Android is not Linux?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kobblestown View Post

          How can you say Android is not Linux?
          Android itself is a different platform to desktop Linux, which further fragments as you get down to the different DEs/Distros.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            It does make sense to target the platform with the most users first.

            Narrator: It's not Linux.
            (screen freeze)
            Another voice: Not really. On Windows you are running on x86 hardware that can deal with OpenVPN fine. Wireguard is great on embedded devices, aka Linux.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Britoid View Post

              Android itself is a different platform to desktop Linux, which further fragments as you get down to the different DEs/Distros.
              As this is a kernel level feature, I dont think that would have been an issue here.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by You- View Post

                As this is a kernel level feature, I dont think that would have been an issue here.
                It's implemented on Android primarily through a userland VPN driver, not a kernel one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by You- View Post
                  As this is a kernel level feature, I dont think that would have been an issue here.
                  WireGuard it self is both provided as a kernel module and as a userland Go application.

                  I seem to remember that android prefers srtongly user-land VPN apps, rather than kernel drivers (most of the VPN I've seen have apps).

                  Also, most actual phone tend to have extremely old kernels (4.4 is the recommended kernel for Android 8.1 Oreo and what you'll actually find most of the time, older version can run on even older kernels), which would anyway require massive back-porting efforts by WireGuard to addapt to them (are all the necessary API even available on such ancient kernels), and then willfulness by the smartphone manufacturer to integrate the kernel patches in an upcoming over-the-air upgrade (nah, not going to happen. At best you're going to only have it used in a few LineageOS ROMs). Given the amount of efforts and the tiny reachable audience with a kernel driver, the WireGuard developper are better off concentrating efforts on user-land APK for Android.

                  On the other hand, Linux would benefit more from a kernel driver, though saddly this would mostly benefit laptop/workstation/server users.
                  Saddly, small embed router boxes (think anything on which you can install OpenWRT and the like) suffer from the same "extemely ancient kernel" problems as the Android situation and would also require quite some back porting efforts. But given the impact of WireGuard being lightweitgh to that hardware, this would probably motivate the devs of OpenWRT, etc. to backport and integrate and provide upgrades. As for the original equipment manufacturers, they're similarly less likely to provide upgrades (I bet Fritz!AMV, Cisco, maybe a couple others, and that's about it) - but which privacy/security enthousiat (the primary target audience of WireGuard) in their right mind is going to trust and keep around some chinese firmware that was pre-installed on their equipment ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I understand where this need is coming from, but unfortunately, this caused that today we have unmerged wg in linux and unfinished app for windows. If this focus for windows would have came after the mainlining, we would be in a much better position having at least one item finished.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X