netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

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: <20180418.132808.1710130437020293308.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:31:03 -0400

> However, I share Sridhar's concerns about the very fundamental change
> to UDP message boundary semantics here.  There is actually no such thing
> as a "segment" in udp, so in general this feature makes me a little
> uneasy.  Well behaved udp applications should already be sending mtu
> sized datagrams. And the not-so-well-behaved ones are probably relying
> on IP fragmentation/reassembly to take care of datagram boundary semantics
> for them?
> 
> As Sridhar points out, the feature is not really "negotiated" - one side
> unilaterally sets the option. If the receiver is a classic/POSIX UDP
> implementation, it will have no way of knowing that message boundaries
> have been re-adjusted at the sender.  

There are no "semantics".

What ends up on the wire is the same before the kernel/app changes as
afterwards.

The only difference is that instead of the application doing N - 1
sendmsg() calls with mtu sized writes, it's giving everything all at
once and asking the kernel to segment.

It even gives the application control over the size of the packets,
which I think is completely prudent in this situation.