netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] send[msg]()/recv[msg]() fixes/improvements

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:08:15 +0000
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] send[msg]()/recv[msg]() fixes/improvements

On 18/03/2021 00:15, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>>> Sounds like 2/2 might too, does it?
>>>
>>> Do you think any application really expects to get a SIGPIPE
>>> when calling io_uring_enter()?
>>
>> If it was about what I think I would remove lots of old garbage :)
>> I doubt it wasn't working well before, e.g. because of iowq, but
>> who knows
> 
> Yes, it was inconsistent before and now it's reliable.

Yep, that where my hesitation was coming from, but the case I had
in mind is 

1) send() -> gone to io-wq
2) close the other end
3) send() fails, probably without SIGPIPE (because io-wq)
4) userspace retries send() and inline execution delivers SIGPIPE

But I guess we don't really care. In any case, let's drop stable tag,
maybe? I don't see a reason for it, considering that stable tries hard
to preserve ABI.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov