linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: add dataref destructor to sk

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:33:35 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: add dataref destructor to sk_buff

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:45:16AM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> What I am getting at is as follows:  From a real basic perspective, you
>> can look at all of this as a simple synchronous call (i.e. sendmsg()).
>> The "app" (be it a userspace app, or a guest) prepares a buffer for
>> transmission, and offers it to the next layer in the stack.  The app
>> must maintain the integrity of that buffer at least until the layer
>> below it signifies that it is "consumed".  This may mean its a
>> synchronous call, like sendmsg(), or it may be asynchronous, like AIO.
> 
> Neither sendmsg() nor sendfile() is synchronous in the way you
> imagine.

Well, not with respect to the overall protocol, of course not.  But with
respect to the buffer in question, it _has_ to be.  Or am I missing
something?

Kind Regards,
-Greg


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)