netdev - Re: IORING_SEND_NOTIF_REPORT_USAGE (was Re: IORING_CQE_F

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]

Message-ID: <678e490a-e876-47d2-e308-5a8f140774f8@samba.org>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:47:12 +0200
From:   Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dylan Yudaken <dylany@...com>
Subject: Re: IORING_SEND_NOTIF_REPORT_USAGE (was Re: IORING_CQE_F_COPIED)

Hi Pavel,

>> Ala a IORING_SEND_* flag? Yes please.
>>
>> *_REPORT_USAGE was fine but I'd make it IORING_SEND_ZC_REPORT_USAGE.
>> And can be extended if there is more info needed in the future.
>>
>> And I don't mind using a bit in cqe->res, makes cflags less polluted.
> 
> So no worries about the delayed/skip sendmsg completion anymore?
> 
> Should I define it like this, ok?
> 
> #define IORING_NOTIF_USAGE_ZC_COPIED    (1U << 31)
> 
> See the full patch below...

Apart from still having IORING_SEND_NOTIF_REPORT_USAGE
in the comment... (which I'll fix...)

Is this now fine for you? Then I would post a real patch.

Thanks!
metze