linux-kernel - Re: Vectored AIO breakage for sockets and pipes ?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:40:45 -0800
From:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To:	suparna@...ibm.com
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, pbadari@...ibm.com,
	linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Vectored AIO breakage for sockets and pipes ?

> I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. One option is to  
> always make
> a copy of the iovec and pass that down. Any other thoughts ?

Can we use this as another motivation to introduce an iovec container  
struct instead of passing a raw iov/seg?  The transition could turn  
hand-rolled functions like pipe_iov_copy_to_user() into functions  
that this iovec struct API provides.

I don't know if this would specifically help aio_rw_vect_retry() to  
know if it should advance the iovec on behalf of its callee who  
returned positive result codes.

Maybe it could use the API to discover a case where ret < size &&  
cur_pos(iov_struct) == initial_pos(iov_struct) via some iovec pos  
query before rw_op is called?

Or maybe the introduction of the API could normalize where the  
responsibility of advancing the iovec lies.  That might be a bit much.

Just talkin' here.

- z
-
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/