netdev - Re: [PATCHSET 0/4] Add support for no-lock sockets

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.