linux-kernel - Re: [RFC -next 00/10] Add ZC notifications to splice and sendfile

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: <67a82595-0e2a-4218-92d4-a704ccb57125@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:33:16 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 asml.silence@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
 kuba@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, mingo@...hat.com,
 arnd@...db.de, brauner@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, jolsa@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC -next 00/10] Add ZC notifications to splice and sendfile

On 3/21/25 2:30 PM, Joe Damato wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 09:36:34AM -0700, Joe Damato wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 05:14:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 3/20/25 11:56 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> I don't know the entire historical context, but I presume sendmsg
>>>>> did that because there was no other mechanism at the time.
>>>>
>>>> At least aio had been around for about 15 years at the point, but
>>>> networking folks tend to be pretty insular and reinvent things.
>>>
>>> Yep...
>>>
>>>>> It seems like Jens suggested that plumbing this through for splice
>>>>> was a possibility, but sounds like you disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, very strongly.
>>>
>>> And that is very much not what I suggested, fwiw.
>>
>> Your earlier message said:
>>
>>   If the answer is "because splice", then it would seem saner to
>>   plumb up those bits only. Would be much simpler too...
>>
>> wherein I interpreted "plumb those bits" to mean plumbing the error
>> queue notifications on TX completions.
>>
>> My sincere apologies that I misunderstood your prior message and/or
>> misconstrued what you said -- it was not clear to me what you meant.
> 
> I think what added to my confusion here was this bit, Jens:
> 
>   > > As far as the bit about plumbing only the splice bits, sorry if I'm
>   > > being dense here, do you mean plumbing the error queue through to
>   > > splice only and dropping sendfile2?
>   > >
>   > > That is an option. Then the apps currently using sendfile could use
>   > > splice instead and get completion notifications on the error queue.
>   > > That would probably work and be less work than rewriting to use
>   > > iouring, but probably a bit more work than using a new syscall.
>   > 
>   > Yep
> 
> I thought I was explicitly asking if adding SPLICE_F_ZC and plumbing
> through the error queue notifications was OK and your response here
> ("Yep") suggested to me that it would be a suitable path to
> consider.
> 
> I take it from your other responses, though, that I was mistaken.

I guess I missed your error queue thing here, I was definitely pretty
clear in other ones that I consider that part a hack and something that
only exists because networking never looked into doing a proper async
API for anything.

-- 
Jens Axboe