| 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: <53803890.2000000@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:13:36 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net> CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ondřej Bílka <neleai@...nam.cz>, Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@...il.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer@...il.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND] Ping! On 05/22/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Arnaldo, > > On 05/21/2014 11:05 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:34:51AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >>> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu: >>>> Hi Arnaldo, >> >>>> Ping! >> >>> I acknowledge the problem, the timeout has to be passed to the >>> underlying ->recvmsg() implementations that should return the time spent >>> waiting for each packet, so that we can accrue that at recvmmsg level. >> >>> We can do either passing an extra timeout parameter to the recvmsg >>> implementations or using some struct sock member to specify that >>> timeout. >> >>> The first approach is intrusive, touches tons of files, so I'll try >>> making it all mostly transparent by hooking into sock_rcvtimeo() >>> somehow. >> >> But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please >> take a look at the attached patch to see if it addresses the problem. >> >> Mostly it adds a new timeop to the per protocol recvmsg() >> implementations, that, if not NULL, should be used instead of >> SO_RCVTIMEO. >> >> since the underlying recvmsg implementations already check that timeout, >> return what is remaining, that will then be used in subsequent recvmsg >> calls, at the end we just convert it back to timespec format. >> >> In most cases it is just passed to skb_recv_datagram, that will check >> the pointer, use it and update if not NULL. >> >> Should have no problems, but I only did a boot with a system with this >> patch applied, no problems noticed on a normal desktop session, ssh, >> etc. > > Thanks! I applied this patch against 3.15-rc6. > > recvmmsg() now (mostly) does what I expect: > * it waits until either the timeout expires or vlen messages > have been received > * If no message is received before timeout, it returns -1/EAGAIN. > * If vlen messages are received before the timeout expires, then > the remaining time is returned in timeout. > > One question: in the event that the call is interrupted by a signal > handler, it fails (as expected) with EINTR, but the 'timeout' value is > not updated with the remaining time on the timer. Would it be desirable > to emulate the behavior of select() (and other syscalls) in this > respect, and instead return the remaining time if interrupted by > a signal? > > Cheers, > > Michael > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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