linux-kernel - Re: Bug in short splice to socket?

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: <CAHk-=wh=V579PDYvkpnTobCLGczbgxpMgGmmhqiTyE34Cpi5Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 13:05:14 -0400
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in short splice to socket?

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:53 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> And no, I don't think "splice_end()" can be that exact semantics -
> even if it's simple - exactly because splice() is an interruptible
> operation, so the "end" of a splice() is simply not a stable thing.

Just to harp some more on this - if SPLICE_F_MORE is seen as purely a
performance hit, with no real semantic value, and will still set
random packet boundaries but we want big packets for all the _usual_
cases, then I think something like "splice_end()" can be a fine
solution regardless of exact semantics.

Alternatively, if we make it the rule that "splice_end()" is only
called on EOF situations - so signals etc do not matter - then the
semantics would be stable and sound fine to me too.

In that second case, I'd like to literally name it that way, and
actually call it "splice_eof()". Because I'd like to really make it
very clear what the semantics would be.

So a "splice_eof()" sounds fine to me, and we'd make the semantics be
the current behavior:

 - splice() sets SPLICE_F_MORE if 'len > read_len'

 - splice() _clears_ SPLICE_F_MORE if we have hit 'len'

 - splice always sets SPLICE_F_MORE if it was passed by the user

BUT with the small new 'splice_eof()' rule that:

 - if the user did *not* set SPLICE_F_MORE *and* we didn't hit that
"use all of len" case that cleared SPLICE_F_MORE, *and* we did a
"->splice_in()" that returned EOF (ie zero), *then* we will also do
that ->splice_eof() call.

The above sounds like "stable and possibly useful semantics" to me. It
would just have to be documented.

Is that what people want?

I don't think it's conceptually any different from my suggestion of
saying "->splice_read() can set SPLICE_F_MORE if it has more to give",
just a different implementation that doesn't require changes on the
splice_read() side.

                 Linus