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]
Message-ID: <1488318476.9415.270.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:47:56 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        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, 2017-02-28 at 13:09 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> 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?

Same remark applies to sendfile() already, or other zero copy modes
(vmsplice() + splice() )




Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ