netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] tcp: add TCP_ZEROCOPY

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: <0ab0c947-0c51-10b9-054c-7cbc5a1726bd@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:47:54 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] tcp: add TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE support for
 zerocopy receive



On 04/26/2018 06:40 AM, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:

> A quick question.  Is it a normal practice to return a result
> in setsockopt() given that the optval parameter is supposed to
> be a const void *?

Very good question.

Andy suggested an ioctl() or setsockopt(), and I chose setsockopt() but it looks
like a better choice would have been getsockopt() indeed.

This might even allow future changes in "struct tcp_zerocopy_receive"

Willem suggested to add code in tcp_recvmsg() but I prefer to not bloat this already too complex function.

I will send a v3 using getsockopt() then, thanks !