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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <114a0ef7-325d-61c7-dc47-3ecd575fd2bf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:42:07 +0100 From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> To: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.1 0/3] fail io_uring zc with sockets not supporting it 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 or maybe SOCK_SUPPORT_EXTERNAL_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. > The SO_ZEROCOPY version is also provided by AF_RDS. -- Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists