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  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]
Date:   Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:32:21 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <>
To:     Ammar Faizi <>
Cc:     io-uring Mailing List <>,
        netdev Mailing List <>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <>,
        Tea Inside Mailing List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Pavel Begunkov <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>, Nugra <>,
        Praveen Kumar <>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.18 v1 0/3] Add `sendto(2)` and `recvfrom(2)` support

On 1/29/22 5:50 AM, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> Hello,
> This patchset adds sendto(2) and recvfrom(2) support for io_uring. It
> also addresses an issue in the liburing GitHub repository [1].
> ## Motivations:
> 1) By using `sendto()` and `recvfrom()` we can make the submission
>    simpler compared to always using `sendmsg()` and `recvmsg()` from
>    the userspace. Especially for UDP socket.
> 2) There is a historical patch that tried to add the same
>    functionality, but did not end up being applied. [2]

As far as I can tell, the only win from sendto/recvfrom is that we can
handle async offload a bit cheaper compared to sendmsg/recvmsg. Is this
enough to warrant adding them separately? I don't know, which is why
this has been somewhat stalled for a while.

Maybe you have done some testing and have numbers (or other reasons) to
back up the submission? There's not a whole lot of justification in this

Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists