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  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:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:58:49 +0100
From:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Casper.Dik@...cle.com
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	dholland-tech@...bsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

On 22/10/2015 12:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> We absolutely do not _want_ to do this just so that linux becomes slower
> to the point Solaris can compete, or you guys can avoid some work.

Sentiments such as that really have no place in a discussion that's been 
focussed primarily on the behaviour of interfaces, albeit with 
digressions into the potential performance impacts. The discussion has 
been cordial and I for one appreciate Al Viro's posts on the subject, 
from which I've leaned a lot. Can we please keep it that way? Thanks.

> close(fd) is very far from knowing a file is a 'listener' or even a
> 'socket' without extra cache line misses.
>
> To force a close of an accept() or whatever blocking socket related
> system call a shutdown() makes a lot of sense.
>
> This would have zero additional overhead for the fast path.

Yes, that would I believe be a significant improvement.

-- 
Alan Burlison
--
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists