linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for-5.18 v1 0/3] Add `sendto(2)` and `recvfrom(2)` support

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: <98d4f268-5945-69a7-cec7-bccfcdedde1c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:32:21 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
Cc:     io-uring Mailing List <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev Mailing List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...weeb.org>,
        Tea Inside Mailing List <timl@...r.teainside.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Nugra <richiisei@...il.com>,
        Praveen Kumar <kpraveen.lkml@...il.com>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.18 v1 0/3] Add `sendto(2)` and `recvfrom(2)` support

On 1/29/22 5:50 AM, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This patchset adds sendto(2) and recvfrom(2) support for io_uring. It
> also addresses an issue in the liburing GitHub repository [1].
> 
> ## Motivations:
> 
> 1) By using `sendto()` and `recvfrom()` we can make the submission
>    simpler compared to always using `sendmsg()` and `recvmsg()` from
>    the userspace. Especially for UDP socket.
> 
> 2) There is a historical patch that tried to add the same
>    functionality, but did not end up being applied. [2]

As far as I can tell, the only win from sendto/recvfrom is that we can
handle async offload a bit cheaper compared to sendmsg/recvmsg. Is this
enough to warrant adding them separately? I don't know, which is why
this has been somewhat stalled for a while.

Maybe you have done some testing and have numbers (or other reasons) to
back up the submission? There's not a whole lot of justification in this
patchset.

-- 
Jens Axboe