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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 17:40:20 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com 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 multi-threaded 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