netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] net: infrastructure for hardware time stamping

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, 16 Dec 2008 08:56:59 +0100
From:	Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"johnstul@...ibm.com" <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] net: infrastructure for hardware time
	stamping

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:53 +0000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com> wrote:
> > @@ -305,6 +406,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
> >                                ipvs_property:1,
> >                                peeked:1,
> >                                nf_trace:1;
> > +       /* not all of the bits in optional are used */
> > +       __u8                    optional;
> >        __be16                  protocol;
> 
> You do reliase that this is going to grow the sk_buff by at least
> 4 bytes and not 1?

Yes. I should have been more explicit about that when talking about
"adding one byte". At least it's better than adding 8 bytes of
additional data, as in the previous patch.

I haven't checked it, but was told that sk_buff is already tightly
packed. It didn't look like there was a better place to put the byte
either.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

--
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