netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

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:	Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:08:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	w@....eu
Cc:	ben@...s.com, jarkao2@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:20:39 +0100

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 01:55:15PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > I'm not applying this until someone explains to me why
> > we should remove this test from the splice receive but
> > keep it in the tcp_recvmsg() code where it has been
> > essentially forever.
> 
> In my opinion, the code structure is different between both functions. In
> tcp_recvmsg(), we test for it if (copied > 0), where copied is the sum of
> all data which have been processed since the entry in the function. If we
> removed the test here, we could not break out of the loop once we have
> copied something. In tcp_splice_read(), the test is still present in the
> (!ret) code path, where ret is the last number of bytes processed, so the
> test is still performed regardless of what has been previously transferred.
> 
> So in summary, in tcp_splice_read without this test, we get back to the
> top of the loop, and if __tcp_splice_read() returns 0, then we break out
> of the loop.

Ok I see what you're saying, the !timeo check is only
necessary when the receive queue has been exhausted.
--
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