linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] vsock/virtio: support for SOCK

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bd1bf1b0-e014-3e58-fbb2-8ada854dd2c1@kaspersky.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:24:23 +0300
From:   Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
To:     stsp <stsp2@...dex.ru>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Arseniy Krasnov <oxffffaa@...il.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
        Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>
CC:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vsock/virtio: support for SOCK_SEQPACKET socket.

> IMHO you can avoid this special-casing
> by introducing yet another outer loop just
> for draining the extra data from buffer.
> Admittedly that may also require an extra
> transport op.

I'm not sure that extra tranport op is needed, may be i'll
try to put drain code inside copy loop, because only
difference is that copy length is 0.

> Why do you need this change?
> (maybe its ok, just wondering)

> No need to reset here, like a few lines
> above in a seemingly similar condition?


Yes, i think you are right.