netdev - Re: sendfile()? Re: SO_LINGER dead: I get an immediate RST on 2.6.24?

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:	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:08:42 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
CC:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, zbr@...emap.net,
	bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl, h.willstrand@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sendfile()? Re: SO_LINGER dead: I get an immediate RST on 2.6.24?

>>How likely is it that the "additional small delay" above would be much 
>>less than waiting for a read return of zero after a shutdown(SHUT_WR) call?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.  I did consider doing
> something like what you suggested, but in the end decided it was simpler
> to deal with a fully ESTABLISHED connection, than worrying about possible
> races with a socket being (partially or fully) closed.

Ostensibly, using a shutdown(SHUT_WR) and then a wait for a recv return 
of zero would take about the same length of time as polling local 
connection stats to see that there were no ostensibly unacked data - 
both will take one RTT right?  and shutdown/read has the added property 
that it will deal with zero windows automagically.

rick
--
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