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:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 17:40:20 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/4] Add support for no-lock sockets

On 4/12/22 13:26, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
> If we accept a connection directly, eg without installing a file
> descriptor for it, or if we use IORING_OP_SOCKET in direct mode, then
> we have a socket for recv/send that we can fully serialize access to.
> With that in mind, we can feasibly skip locking on the socket for TCP
> in that case. Some of the testing I've done has shown as much as 15%
> of overhead in the lock_sock/release_sock part, with this change then
> we see none.
> Comments welcome!
How BH handlers (including TCP timers) and io_uring are going to run 
safely ?

Even if a tcp socket had one user, (private fd opened by a non 

program), we would still to use the spinlock.

Maybe I am missing something, but so far your patches make no sense to me.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists