linux-kernel - Re: splice question

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:	Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:56:14 +0200
From:	David Härdeman <david@...deman.nu>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: splice question

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:41:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, David H?rdeman wrote:
>> 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.

Ok, I've implemented it using two pipes, and it works. But it does seem 
a bit wasteful...in case one client is not keeping up, the data will 
have to be tee():ed first from pipe1 to pipe2, only to then find out 
that the splice() from pipe2 to socket only does a partial transfer 
after which the data in pipe2 has to be thrown away and then the loop 
starts over with the next client.

A tee() from pipe1 to the socket could (I imagine) realize immediately 
that the socket does not have enough buffer space and return EWOULDBLOCK 
and avoid at least one copy?

-- 
David Härdeman
-
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/