netdev - Re: [PATCH] [NET] warn when accounting an skb that already has a destructor

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 05 May 2008 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Cc:	johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] warn when accounting an skb that already has a
 destructor

From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:43:25 +0300 (EEST)

> On Mon, 5 May 2008, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
> > Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:31:15 +0200
> > 
> > > If we decide to uninline those functions for another reason (used too
> > > much, code size, ...) then we can still do that.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> 
> According to my measurements the size bloat of those two is
> (x86/32bit, gcc 4.1.2 redhat something):
> 
> -1091  40 funcs, 89 +, 1180 -, diff: -1091 --- skb_set_owner_r
> -495  46 funcs, 70 +, 565 -, diff: -495 --- skb_set_owner_w

That's not too bad, but adding the WARN_ON() we're discussing
will plump that up a bit, percentage wise, which is why I
said we should inline it in such a case.
--
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