| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708121238390.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: David H?rdeman <david@...deman.nu> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: splice question On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, David H?rdeman wrote: > > Once the data is in the pipe, my idea was to tee() from the pipe to each > client socket using nonblocking ops, and then consume the data by splicing it > to /dev/null. > > The problem is that tee() doesn't support sockets. Is this a limitation that > would be easy to fix? It's very intentional. You should think of "tee()" as a memcpy() on kernel buffers. And what are kernel buffers? It's not a socket. The "kernel buffer" is simply just another name for a pipe. So tee() *duplicates* the data in pipe, and then you can use "splice()" on the duplicated data to actually send it off somewhere else (eg a socket). (Or any other pipe operation, for that matter - you can read() it into user space etc). > Otherwise I guess I'd have to add a second pipe, then (in a loop) > tee() from the first to the second pipe and then splice from the second pipe > to a socket. Doesn't sound very elegant and would need quite a lot of extra > syscalls. You really should think of this as a memcpy(), and you'll be in the right mindframe. The system calls themselves are cheap. Linus - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists