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  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:	Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:20:08 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: sendmmsg should only return an error if no
 messages were sent


On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 12:57 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > sendmmsg uses a similar error return strategy as recvmmsg but it
> > turns out to be a confusing way to communicate errors.
> > 
> > The current code stores the error code away and returns it on the next
> > sendmmsg call. This means a call with completely valid arguments could
> > get an error from a previous call.
> > 
> > Change things so we only return an error if no datagrams could be sent.
> > If less than the requested number of messages were sent, the application
> > must retry starting at the first failed one and if the problem is
> > persistent the error will be returned.
> > 
> > This matches the behaviour of other syscalls like read/write - it
> > is not an error if less than the requested number of elements are sent.
> OK. David S. Miller suggested this behavior and Anton Blanchard agreed with
> this behavior.
> Quoting from commit a2e27255 "net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall":
> | . R?mi Denis-Courmont & Steven Whitehouse: If we receive N < vlen
> |   datagrams and then recvmsg returns an error, recvmmsg will return
> |   the successfully received datagrams, store the error and return it
> |   in the next call.
> R?mi Denis-Courmont, Steven Whitehouse and Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, do you
> want to change recvmmsg()'s behaviour as well?

Since I've joined this part way through it seems, I'm assuming that if
something was sent/received then that will be returned and the error
stored until the next call. If nothing was sent/received then the error
can be returned immediately.

That is what I'd expect to be the case, since otherwise it is impossible
to know how much has been successfully sent/received in the partial
failure case, I think. Also it means that sendmmesg/recvmmsg matches
sendmsg/recvmsg in terms of expected return values and thus the
principle of least surprise.

So if thats what is being proposed, then it sounds good to me,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists