netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce SO_RCVBUFAUTO to let the rcv

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]

Message-ID: <CAL+tcoCOX8A4gFDr5_QdLJ0PgwdBAbECtu4yh+RVTTJSp7yQyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:15:30 +0800
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>,
        Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce SO_RCVBUFAUTO to let the
 rcv_buf tune automatically

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:56 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:58 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> > Just now, I found out that the latest kernel has merged a similar
> > patch (commit 04190bf89) about three months ago.
>
> There you go :)
>
> >
> > Is it still necessary to add another separate option to clear the
> > SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK explicitly?
>
> What do you mean, SO_BUF_LOCK is all that is needed.

Yeah, I think SO_BUF_LOCK is enough and we don't have to add a new
option like SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK as we've talked about before. Thanks,
Eric.