[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1227123.1685706296@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 12:44:56 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
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?
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Do what I already suggested: making SPLICE_F_MORE reflect reality.
I'm trying to. I need MSG_MORE to behave sensibly for what I want.
What I have signals SPLICE_F_MORE (and thus MSG_MORE) as long as we haven't
yet read enough data to fulfill the request - and will break out of the loop
if we get a zero-length read.
But this causes a change in behaviour because we then leave the protocol
having seen MSG_MORE set where it didn't previously see that.
This causes "tls -r tls.12_aes_gcm.multi_chunk_sendfile" on the TLS kselftest
to fail.
Now, if we're fine with the change in behaviour, I can make the selftest
observe the short sendfile() and cancel MSG_MORE itself - but that's just a
test program.
So that's the question: Do I have to maintain the current behaviour for the
short-splice case?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists