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:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:09:44 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/12] socket sendmsg MSG_ZEROCOPY

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> I can see this working if you have a special type of skb that
>> indicates that the data might be concurrently written and have all the
>> normal skb APIs (including, especially, anything that clones it) make
>> a copy first.
>
> Support for cloned skbs is required for TCP, both at tcp_transmit_skb
> and segmentation offload. Patch 4 especially adds reference counting
> of shared pages across clones and other sk_buff operations like
> pskb_expand_head. This still allows for deep copy (skb_copy_ubufs)
> on clones in specific datapaths like the above.

Does this mean that a user program that does a zerocopy send can cause
a retransmitted segment to contain different data than the original
segment?  If so, is that okay?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists