netdev - RE: zero copy for relay server

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <D69C90565D53114396BF743585AF5A09122E61E9E9@VSHINMSMBX01.vshodc.lntinfotech.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:48:31 +0530
From:	Viral Mehta <Viral.Mehta@...infotech.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: zero copy for relay server


>From: Eric Dumazet [eric.dumazet@...il.com]

>Le lundi 28 mars 2011 à 21:57 +0530, Viral Mehta a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> I am implementing a particular application where
>> my application acts nothing but like Relay Server.
>>
>> Relay server accepts connection from machine A.
>> It also accepts connection from Machine B.
>>
>> Machine A and B are on different LAN/subnnets.
>> Now, there are two connections.
>> What server is supposed to do is RECV packets from machine A and SEND same
>> to machine B.
>>
>> Pseudo Code is something like,
>> while(1)
>> {
>> recvagain:
>>    n =3D recv(incoming_fd, &buf, 8192, ...)
>>    if(n < 0)
>>         goto recvagain;
>>    send(outgoing_fd, &buf, n, ...);
>> }
>>
>> Now the question is,
>> I want to avoid kernel-user copy for such application.
>> I found that a syscall like "sendfile"; I wanted to know if there is any
>> similar thing exists in-kernel which can take 2 socket descriptors....
>>
>> If not, is it possible ? I would like to implement the same if someone
>> can suggest some pointers.

>linux way (if you want to avoid netfilter stuff and use userland code)
>is to use splice() system call, and a pipe between two sockets.

Yes, I want to avoid netfilter stuff.
I know it but I think it is more complicated than an application programmer should know.

>/* skeleton : must add error checking to exit the loop properly */
>int fds[2];
>pipe(fds);
>
>while (1) {
>        splice(incoming_fd, NULL, fds[1], NULL, 65536, 0);
>        splice(fds[0], NULL, outgoing_fd, NULL, 65536, 0);
>}

Still, these are two system calls.
In addition to this, many things to handle,
1. if the incoming_fd is blocking, then it will block till 64K data read. Why so ?
2. I believe underlying PIPE that we are using will also have some size limit
    (like in user space 4K or 64K, not sure)

So, all in all
Why cant we have just one system call which really transfers "length"
bytes of data form one socket to another ? Recv "length" bytes of data
from socket A and send to socket B.

I wanted to understand if there are any limitations or concerns that we still do
not have any such system call .... ?

>This way, messages dont cross kernel<>user boundary.

>The pipe is acting as a buffer between the two sockets.




______________________________________________________________________

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient(s). Unintended recipients are prohibited from taking action on the basis of information in this e-mail and  using or disseminating the information,  and must notify the sender and delete it from their system. L&T Infotech will not accept responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of, or the presence of any virus or disabling code in this e-mail"

______________________________________________________________________
--
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