SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

Description

@geoffkizer

Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
       blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
      }
      } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
      })();
      (function(){
      try {
      var __m = "github.com";
      var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
      
      Skip to content

      SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

      Description

      @geoffkizer

      Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

      See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

      In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

      We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

      More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

      Metadata

      Metadata

      Assignees

      No one assigned

        Labels

        Type

        No type

        Projects

        No projects

          Relationships

          None yet

          Development

          No branches or pull requests

          Issue actions

          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
          Skip to content

          SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

          Description

          @geoffkizer

          Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

          See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

          In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

          We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

          More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

          Metadata

          Metadata

          Assignees

          No one assigned

            Labels

            Type

            No type

            Projects

            No projects

              Relationships

              None yet

              Development

              No branches or pull requests

              Issue actions

              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
              Skip to content

              SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

              Description

              @geoffkizer

              Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

              See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

              In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

              We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

              More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

              Metadata

              Metadata

              Assignees

              No one assigned

                Labels

                Type

                No type

                Projects

                No projects

                  Relationships

                  None yet

                  Development

                  No branches or pull requests

                  Issue actions

                  , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
                  Skip to content

                  SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

                  Description

                  @geoffkizer

                  Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

                  See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

                  In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

                  We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

                  More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

                  Metadata

                  Metadata

                  Assignees

                  No one assigned

                    Labels

                    Type

                    No type

                    Projects

                    No projects

                      Relationships

                      None yet

                      Development

                      No branches or pull requests

                      Issue actions

                      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                      Skip to content

                      SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

                      Description

                      @geoffkizer

                      Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

                      See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

                      In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

                      We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

                      More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

                      Metadata

                      Metadata

                      Assignees

                      No one assigned

                        Labels

                        Type

                        No type

                        Projects

                        No projects

                          Relationships

                          None yet

                          Development

                          No branches or pull requests

                          Issue actions

                          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                          Skip to content

                          SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

                          Description

                          @geoffkizer

                          Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

                          See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

                          In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

                          We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

                          More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

                          Metadata

                          Metadata

                          Assignees

                          No one assigned

                            Labels

                            Type

                            No type

                            Projects

                            No projects

                              Relationships

                              None yet

                              Development

                              No branches or pull requests

                              Issue actions

                              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
                              Skip to content

                              SocketAsyncContext should not need to pin Span buffers for sync APIs #46600

                              Description

                              @geoffkizer

                              Currently, if you call a sync Span-based Socket overload like Socket.Receive(Span<byte> buffer), and we end up going through the sync-over-async path in SocketAsyncContext, we will end up pinning the buffer when data is not immediately available from the socket.

                              See references to BufferPtrReceiveOperation and BufferPtrSendOperation in SocketAsyncContext.

                              In theory, this shouldn't be necessary. All sync operation handling happens on the original calling thread, so we can simply hold on to the Span there. The problem is that the structure of the code currently requires that we store this state on the Operation object, which means we need to pin the Span and treat it as a native pointer.

                              We should fix this. This would also allow us to remove the duplication of code that currently exists between the byte[] sync overloads and the Span sync overloads.

                              More generally, we shouldn't really need to store any operation-specific state on the Operation objects for sync operations; it can all live on the calling stack. This would likely simplify the code, and make these operations more efficient since we don't need to allocate an operation each time.

                              Metadata

                              Metadata

                              Assignees

                              No one assigned

                                Labels

                                Type

                                No type

                                Projects

                                No projects

                                  Relationships

                                  None yet

                                  Development

                                  No branches or pull requests

                                  Issue actions