netdev - Re: Why do we need MSG_SENDPAGE

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: <1493922776.7796.20.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 May 2017 11:32:56 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        tls-fpga-sw-dev <tls-fpga-sw-dev@...lanox.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST?

On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 17:03 +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> I don't understand the need for MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST and I'm hoping
> someone can enlighten me.
> 
> According to commit 35f9c09 ('tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call
> tcp_push() once'):
> "We need to call tcp_flush() at the end of the last page processed in
> tcp_sendpages(), or else transmits can be deferred and future sends
> stall."
> 
> I don't understand why we need to differentiate between the user
> setting MSG_MORE 
> and splice indicating that more data is going to be sent.
> if the user passed MSG_MORE and didn't push any extra data, isn't it
> the users fault? 
> Do we need it because poorly written applications were broken when 
> MSG_MORE was added to tcp_sendpage? Or is there a deeper reason?
> 

The answer lies to how splice() is working.

User can issue one splice without MSG_MORE semantic, right ?

Still, we want an implicit MORE behavior for all individual pages, but
the last one.


> The reason I'm asking is that we are working on a kernel TLS
> implementation 
> and I would like to know if we can coalesce multiple tls_sendpage
> calls with MSG_MORE into a single
> tls record or whether we must push out the record as soon as
> MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST is cleared?

Make sure you handle partial writes (you want to coalesce 10 pages, but
stack will only take 5 of them)