linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: remove release/lock_sock in tcp_splice

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: <CAL+tcoBqkE+s2JbuwijWkrJJA2YBg=Z78oQ-ROqoqKEpnRgTtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 19:34:37 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: sunyiqi <sunyiqixm@...il.com>, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, 
	dsahern@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: remove release/lock_sock in tcp_splice_read

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 7:23 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/15/24 12:55, Jason Xing wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 6:40 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> -             release_sock(sk);
> >>> -             lock_sock(sk);
> >>
> >> This is needed to flush the sk backlog.
> >>
> >> Somewhat related, I think we could replace the pair with sk_flush_backlog().
> >>
> >
> > Do you think we could do this like the following commit:
> >
> > commit d41a69f1d390fa3f2546498103cdcd78b30676ff
> > Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Date:   Fri Apr 29 14:16:53 2016 -0700
> >
> >      tcp: make tcp_sendmsg() aware of socket backlog
> >
> >      Large sendmsg()/write() hold socket lock for the duration of the call,
> >      unless sk->sk_sndbuf limit is hit. This is bad because incoming packets
> >      are parked into socket backlog for a long time. >
> > ?
>
> Yep. To be more accurate I was looking at commit
> 93afcfd1db35882921b2521a637c78755c27b02c

Thanks. It arouses my interest. Now I do believe we can do such
optimization in this function.

>
> In any case this should be unrelated from the supposed issue.

Sure.

Thanks,
Jason