netdev - Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22

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

Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:36:33 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression	in	2.6.24-rc6,	comparing
 with 2.6.22

When parsing the -P option in scan_socket_args() of src/nettest_bsd.c, 
netperf is using "break_args()" from src/netsh.c which indeed if the 
command line says "-P 12345" will set both the local and remote port 
numbers to 12345.  If instead you were to say "-P 12345,"  it will use 
12345 only for the netperf side.  If you say "-P ,12345" it will use 
12345 only for the netserver side.  To set both sides at once to 
different values it would be "-P 12345,54321"

In theory, send_udp_rr() in src/nettest_bsd.c (or I suppose 
scan_socket_args() could have more code added to it to check for a UDP 
test over loopback, but probably needs to be a check for any local IP, 
and unless this becomes something bigger than "Doctor! Doctor! It hurts 
when I do this!" :) I'm inclined to leave it as caveat benchmarker and 
perhaps some additional text in the manual.

rick jones
--
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