netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/6] sock: MSG_PEEK support for sk_error

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: <20180118230341.GG24553@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:03:41 -0500
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
        santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/6] sock: MSG_PEEK support for
 sk_error_queue

On (01/18/18 17:54), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > 2. If we have the option of passing completion-notification up as ancillary
> >    data on the pollin/recvmsg channel itself (instead of MSG_ERRQUEUE)
> 
> This assumes a somewhat symmetric workload, where there are enough recv
> calls to reap the notification associated with the send calls.

Your comment about the assumption is true, but at least for the database
use-cases, we have a request-response model, so the assumption works out..
I dont know if many other workloads that send large buffers have this
pattern.

> I would stay with MSG_ERRQUEUE processing. One option is to pass data
> up to userspace in the data portion of the notification skb instead of
> encoding it in ancillary data, like tcp_get_timestamping_opt_stats.

that's similar to what I have, except that it does not have the
MSG_PEEK part (you'd need to enforce that the data portion
is upper-bounded, and that the application has the responsibility
of sending down "enough" buffer with recvmsg). 

Note that any one of these choices are ok with me- I have no
special attachments to any of them.

--Sowmini