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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:49:46 +0200
From:   Stefan Metzmacher <>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <>,
        Jens Axboe <>, Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.1 0/3] fail io_uring zc with sockets not supporting

Am 21.10.22 um 12:42 schrieb Pavel Begunkov:
> On 10/21/22 11:27, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>> Some sockets don't care about msghdr::ubuf_info and would execute the
>>> request by copying data. Such fallback behaviour was always a pain in
>>> my experience, so we'd rather want to fail such requests and have a more
>>> robust api in the future.
>>> Mark struct socket that support it with a new SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC flag.
>>> I'm not entirely sure it's the best place for the flag but at least
>>> we don't have to do a bunch of extra dereferences in the hot path.
>> I'd give the flag another name that indicates msg_ubuf and
> Could be renamed, e.g. SOCK_SUPPORT_MSGHDR_UBUF 


>> have a 2nd flag that can indicate support for SO_ZEROCOPY in sk_setsockopt()
> There is absolutely no reason to introduce a second flag here, it has
> nothing to do with SO_ZEROCOPY.

I meant as a separate change to replace the hard coded logic in
sk_setsockopt()... But I don't care much about it, it's unlikely
that I ever want to use SO_ZEROCOPY...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists