From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca•com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love•SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: anton@samba•org, mjt@tls•msk.ru, davem@davemloft•net,
netdev@vger•kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger•kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix security_socket_sendmsg() bypass problem.
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:44:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E2D8F4D.2000009@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107252215.GBG95887.OQVMFOOJLSFFHt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On 7/25/2011 6:15 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Anton Blanchard wrote:
>>>> When I saw recvmmsg()/sendmmsg() here, my first thought was an
>>>> authoritative DNS server which can read several requests at a
>>>> time and answer them all at once too - this way it all will go
>>>> to different addresses.
>>> I don't know what application wants sendmmsg(). Since users can send
>>> up to UIO_MAXIOV (= 1024) "struct iovec" blocks using sendmsg(), they
>>> will use sendmsg() rather than sendmmsg() if the destination address
>>> are the same.
>> But if an application needs to maintain packet boundaries, then sendmsg
>> isn't going to help is it?
> Well, such application might want to use RDM or SeqPacket... but your point is
> to maintain packet boundaries. You are assuming that sendmmsg() will be used
> for sending as much data as possible while preserving packet boundaries.
>
> OK. Then, the question is how to reduce performance loss by redundant
> security_socket_sendmsg() calls.
Not to be splitting hairs, but if the packets are headed to
different destinations the calls to security_socket_sendmsg()
are not redundant, they are necessary and appropriate. What
you have with sendmmsg() is an optimization that sacrifices
correctness for performance.
> If sendmmsg() likely contains single (or few)
> destination(s), trying to optimize security_socket_sendmsg() calls by comparing
> destination address (as proposed at
> http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/linux-security-module/msg11510.html
> ) would help. Otherwise, no optimization (as proposed at
> http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/linux-security-module/msg11504.html
> ) would be better. Which approach do you like?
I fear that you are going to find that the work you have
to do to reduce the number of calls is going to outweigh
the benefits of your optimization, as has been pointed out
earlier. My recommendation is that the sendmmsg() interface
is ill conceived and that you should look for alternative
ways to improve the performance of the use case.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-25 15:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201107110304.p6B34422036886@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
[not found] ` <201107191754.22391.paul.moore@hp.com>
[not found] ` <201107200142.p6K1gKYg077046@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
[not found] ` <201107211721.14511.paul.moore@hp.com>
2011-07-22 11:41 ` Question regarding sendmmsg() Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-22 12:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-22 15:12 ` [PATCH] net: Fix security_socket_sendmsg() bypass problem Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-22 15:22 ` David Miller
2011-07-22 17:42 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-22 18:31 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-23 5:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-23 7:04 ` Michael Tokarev
2011-07-23 10:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-25 12:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-25 13:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-25 15:44 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2011-07-25 16:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-25 17:00 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-07-26 9:55 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-26 11:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-07-26 13:58 ` Eric Paris
2011-07-28 3:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-02 6:07 ` David Miller
2011-08-02 9:28 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-02 11:18 ` David Miller
2011-08-02 11:26 ` David Miller
2011-08-02 11:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-02 12:01 ` David Miller
2011-08-02 13:11 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-03 3:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-03 3:38 ` David Miller
2011-08-03 3:47 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-08-03 12:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-03 13:29 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-08-03 13:37 ` Eduard Sinelnikov
2011-08-03 21:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-08-04 12:56 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-08-03 13:54 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-26 20:30 ` Question regarding sendmmsg() Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E2D8F4D.2000009@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca$(echo .)com \
--cc=anton@samba$(echo .)org \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=mjt@tls$(echo .)msk.ru \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love$(echo .)SAKURA.ne.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox