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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <VI1PR0502MB29571B2B852BF681FC1DB9B0D4E80@VI1PR0502MB2957.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 05:46:55 +0000 From: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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? I don't follow. Why can't splice use MSG_MORE for the individual pages? Why does tcp_sendpage need to know if the MORE indicator is coming from the user or from splice? I also don't understand your comment about partial writes. Thanks, Ilya > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 9:33 PM > To: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com> > Cc: 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) > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists