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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8c5e3b16-15ac-45fe-d9c2-14615eccb981@gnuweeb.org>
Date:   Sun, 30 Jan 2022 06:30:52 +0700
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
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 1/30/22 1:32 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
> 

So far, I haven't done it. I only created a test that ensures the
functionality is working properly.

I will play with this further. If I win, I will submit the v2 of
this series for review. Thanks, Jens!

-- 
Ammar Faizi