linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets

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

Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:45:38 +0100
From:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:	Andy King <acking@...are.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	pv-drivers@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets

On 02/18/13 18:07, Andy King wrote:
> Hi Gerd,
> 
>>> +		written = transport->stream_enqueue(
>>> +				vsk, msg->msg_iov,
>>> +				len - total_written);
>>
>> Hmm, shouldn't we pass total_written to stream_enqueue here?
>>
>> In case a blocking send(big-buffer) call gets splitted into multiple
>> stream_enqueue calls the second (and further) stream_enqueue calls need
>> to know at which msg offset they should continue sending the data, no?
> 
> On the client side, the iov tracks it internally; see memcpy_fromiovec().

Ah, memcpy_fromiovec patches the iovec to keep track of the offset.
Wasn't aware it does this.  Yes, we don't need to pass the offset then.

cheers,
  Gerd

--
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/