netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND]

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: <20140523.150055.2214666905697701415.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2014 15:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	acme@...nel.org
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	neleai@...nam.cz, caitlin.bestler@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
	eliedebrauwer@...il.com, steve@...gwyn.com,
	remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
	chris.friesen@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness
 [RESEND]

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:05:35 -0300

> But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please
> take a look at the attached patch to see if it addresses the problem.
> 
> Mostly it adds a new timeop to the per protocol recvmsg()
> implementations, that, if not NULL, should be used instead of
> SO_RCVTIMEO.
> 
> since the underlying recvmsg implementations already check that timeout,
> return what is remaining, that will then be used in subsequent recvmsg
> calls, at the end we just convert it back to timespec format.
> 
> In most cases it is just passed to skb_recv_datagram, that will check
> the pointer, use it and update if not NULL.
> 
> Should have no problems, but I only did a boot with a system with this
> patch applied, no problems noticed on a normal desktop session, ssh,
> etc.

This looks fine to me, but I have a small request:

+	return noblock ? 0 : timeop ? *timeop : sk->sk_rcvtimeo;

I keep forgetting which way these expressions associate, so if you could
parenthesize the innermost ?: I'd appreciate it. :)

Thanks!
--
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