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

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

Date:	Mon, 05 May 2008 13:37:33 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] warn when accounting an skb that already has a
	destructor

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:43 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 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

So do we want to out-line them? I don't really know the scale involved.
If so I can resubmit this patch with them outlined and the warnings
added (but did you account for the EXPORT_SYMBOL space?)

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)