netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:36:52 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	paul.moore@...com
Cc:	joe@...ches.com, jarkao2@...il.com, hadi@...erus.ca,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly

From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:19:03 -0500

> > Perhaps move the skb->cloned = 1 to just after n->cloned = 1
> > or
> > 	skb->cloned = n->cloned = 1;
> > or maybe
> > 	skb->cloned = 1;
> > 	C(cloned);
> 
> I thought about that, but I kinda like how the parent-skb-only changes are 
> grouped together at the end.  I think the distinction helps readability, but 
> then again we've already seen how subjective readability can be :)

I think either way is fine, as long as the stores are ordered
properly.  The ordering of the loads and little issues like
this skb->cloned thing are much less important.

Actually, if you look at the generated assembler, GCC makes
a mess of all of these bitfield accesses, largely destroying
the pure store stream since it does a read/modify/write on
a word for each bitfield set.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html