netdev - Re: [PATCH] sendfile() and UDP 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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:40:52 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johaahn@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sendfile() and UDP socket

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 09:27:24PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> > Datagram just preservs the boundaries and that's what we have with this
> > patch.
> 
> Not exactly.
> 
> Each and every send() operation on a datagram socket must result in
> exactly one packet.  sendfile() was following this rule, when it
> returned successfully only one single packet was emitted.
>
> The new sendfile() semantics are outside of this model.

That's for send(), not sendfile(). The latter now works like lots of
sends() while previously it worked as single send().

Why sendfile() should be completely different compared to stream case?
Obviously send() has to be different and it is, but sendfile() is just a
bunch of sends over the pages in the cache, so let's allow it to be
multiple sends and not only single packet send.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html