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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 May 2008 11:39:11 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johannes@...solutions.net,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] warn when accounting an skb that already has a
 destructor

On Mon, 5 May 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

> Em Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:08:11PM -0700, David Miller escreveu:
> > 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.
> 
> s/inline/uninline/g
> 
> According to some long e-mail today its worth ~198 unexport patches! 8-)

...and there would be hundreths of similar with that order of magnitude,
thus one could, for starters, multiply that by ~200 or so... 8-D

-- 
 i.