linux-kernel - Re: async network I/O, event channels, etc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:29:24 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...e.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johnpol@....mipt.ru, drepper@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: async network I/O, event channels, etc

On Thu, Jul 27 2006, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...e.de>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:11:15 +0200
> 
> > Ownership transition from user -> kernel that is, what I'm trying to say
> > that returning ownership to the user again is the tricky part.
> 
> Yes, it is important that for TCP, for example, we don't give
> the user the event until the data is acknowledged and the skb's
> referencing that data are fully freed.
> 
> This is further complicated by the fact that packetization boundaries
> are going to be different from AIO buffer boundaries.
> 
> I think this is what you are alluding to.

Precisely. And this is the bit that is currently still broken for
splice-to-socket, since it gives that ack right after ->sendpage() has
been called. But that's a known deficiency right now, I think Alexey is
currently looking at that (as well as receive side support).

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/