lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  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:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:28:51 -0800
From:   Tom Herbert <>
To:     Eric Dumazet <>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Willem de Bruijn <>,
        Michael Kerrisk <>,
        netdev <>,
        Willem de Bruijn <>,
        Linux API <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/12] socket sendmsg MSG_ZEROCOPY

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 14:52 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The user pages are a gift to the kernel.  The application  may  not
>> modify this memory ever, otherwise the page cache and on-disk data may
>> differ.
>> This is just not okay IMO.
> TCP works just fine in this case.
> TX checksum will be computed by the NIC after/while data is copied.
> If really the application changes the data, that will not cause any
> problems, other than user side consistency.
> This is why we require a copy (for all buffers that came from zero-copy)
> if network stack hits a device that can not offload TX checksum.
> Even pwrite() does not guarantee consistency if multiple threads are
> using it on overlapping regions.
The Mellanox team working on TLS offload pointed out to us that if
data is changed for a retransmit then it becomes trivial for someone
snooping to break the encryption. Sounds pretty scary and it would be
a shame if we couldn't use zero-copy in that use case :-( Hopefully we
can find a solution...



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ