On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 08:55:14AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > In other words: because the socket needs to be ESTABLISHED for
> > MSG_ZEROCOPY to work, and because remote party can send FIN and move
> > the socket to CLOSE_WAIT, a sending party must implement a fallback
> > from EINVAL retur
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:50 AM Marek Majkowski wrote:
>
> I got it slightly wrong, and it's even worse than this. As far as I
> understand it, the current semantics of MSG_ZEROCOPY on TCP make it
> close to unusable. The problem is that the remote party can move your
> MSG_ZEROCOPY socket from EST
I got it slightly wrong, and it's even worse than this. As far as I
understand it, the current semantics of MSG_ZEROCOPY on TCP make it
close to unusable. The problem is that the remote party can move your
MSG_ZEROCOPY socket from ESTABLISHED to CLOSE_WAIT without your
involvement. This will mean t
