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]

Message-ID: <20080922054918.GA31099@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:49:20 +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 10:06:05PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> Because datagram sockets are completely different from stream sockets.
> 
> You program them differently, segmentation is made by the socket user
> not within by the protocol itself.
> 
> sendfile() should behave in a way congruent to the other data transfer
> APIs of the BSD socket layer.

So effectively you are saying, that sendfile() is just a pure send(),
but with diferent arguments? I.e. it is not supposed to send the whole
data it points to, but as much as possible according to send() standard?

Well, it may be a right or wrong decision, and in my opinion sendfile()
is very diferent than send() since it should require the whole data to
be sent, i.e. being like a loop of send()s, but since sendfile() is
effectively a very new approach, it could have different behaviour
rules.

Because of this, Johann, this patch will not be applied, but thanks a
lot for your work, we made a clear meaning on interface usage.

-- 
	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