On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:56:44 +0200 > Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The problem is that the socket.sendall() method may require multiple > > syscalls. In this case, does the timeout count for the total time or > > only for a single syscall? Asked differently: should we reset the > > timeout each time a syscall succeed? > > From a user's point of view, it should count for the total time, IMO. > If people want a timeout for each syscall, they should call send() > iteratively. I'm agree with Antoine for a global timeout. When you exchange data with the external world, very often, you can't trust the other part. If you reset the timeout each time you send or receive something, the other part could use this property to send few bytes during a long time to force you to block for almost nothing during a longer time than with a global timeout. It's like an old granny at the checkout of a supermarket who pays coin by coin, you don't know if only her age or if she purposely be as slow. It's the same principle with Slowloris attack: http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/ BTW, when I've learnt AsyncIO, I've reimplemented Slowloris attack with AsyncIO in a quick'd'dirty Python script. The funny thing is that the Python script consumed less CPU and was more efficient than the original Perl script. If somebody is interested in, I can send you the script. -- Ludovic Gasc (GMLudo) http://www.gmludo.eu/
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
