netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 40/48] sunrpc: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE

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: <C8E6146A-0987-402F-BD91-3114E9A18E1D@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:16:01 +0000
From:   Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 40/48] sunrpc: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES) rather
 then sendpage



> On Mar 30, 2023, at 5:41 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>>> +	if (ret > 0)
>>> +		*sentp = ret;
> 
> Should that be:
> 
> 		*sentp = ret - sizeof(marker);
> 
> David
> 

That's a bit out of context, but ...

The return value of ->xpo_sendto is effectively ignored. There is
no caller of svc_process that checks its return code.

svc_rdma_sendto(), for example, returns zero or a negative errno.

That should be cleaned up one day.

--
Chuck Lever