Re: Bug in short splice to socket?

[David Howells]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Do what I already suggested: making SPLICE_F_MORE reflect reality.

I'm trying to.  I need MSG_MORE to behave sensibly for what I want.

What I have signals SPLICE_F_MORE (and thus MSG_MORE) as long as we haven't
yet read enough data to fulfill the request - and will break out of the loop
if we get a zero-length read.

But this causes a change in behaviour because we then leave the protocol
having seen MSG_MORE set where it didn't previously see that.

This causes "tls -r tls.12_aes_gcm.multi_chunk_sendfile" on the TLS kselftest
to fail.

Now, if we're fine with the change in behaviour, I can make the selftest
observe the short sendfile() and cancel MSG_MORE itself - but that's just a
test program.

So that's the question: Do I have to maintain the current behaviour for the
short-splice case?

David