lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> POSIX specifies:

<useful stuff snipped>

> The recvmsg( ) function may fail if:
>
> [EIO] An I/O error occurred while reading from or writing to the file
> system.

<snipped>

> Since you didn't code to Linux, and didn't code to POSIX... what did you
> code to?

I didn't code it--my code generally uses nonblocking sockets or doesn't use
select at all. I'm just commenting on existing apps.

What do you mean by "didn't code to Linux"? The Linux man pages for recvmsg()
and ip do not mention EIO. Hence, I suspect that not many people coding for
Linux will have handled it. Furthermore, the Linux man page for select() says
that a socket that is returned as readable will not block on a subsequent read.

>> On the other hand, if you simply do the checksum verification at
>> select() time for blocking sockets, then the existing binaries get
>> exactly the behaviour they expect.

> ... unless the blocking changes. In which case you either have to do
> work twice, or it might *never* happen. Not to mention the extra code
> complexity.

If you verify the checksum at select time, you could just flag the packet as
verified. Then even if you do a recvmsg() with MSG_DONTWAIT, you wouldn't have
to verify it again. It means an extra pass over the data compared to a full-on
O_NONBLOCK socket, but it's still correct.

If you change from nonblocking to blocking between select() and recvmsg(), then
you have a problem, but you're still no worse off than the current situation.

The extra complexity is a valid point, but I suggest that the expectations of
the installed base are more important.


> The performance overhead of checksumming is substantial; I have seen
> some real horror examples of what happens when you do it badly.

Again, this is only a backwards compatibility thing. All new apps should use
nonblocking sockets anyways, right? So this way, old apps don't suffer from
single-packet-DOS attacks, at the cost of a performance penalty.

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.499 / U:1.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site