netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: No more expensive sock_hold()/sock

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:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: No more expensive sock_hold()/sock_put() on each
 tx

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:30:49 +0200

> David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:18:35 +0200
>> 
>> Eric, I don't understand this part, please enlighten me :-)
>> 
>> Just because we've liberated all of the write buffer space, that does
>> not mean that it's time to kill off the socket completely.
>> 
>> Right?
> 
> Remember we initialize this field to one.
> 
> If we freed all write buffer space, final value is one, not zero.
> 
> res == 0 only if we both freed all write buffer space, *and* socket was
> also refcounted to 0 (sk_free() then realized it could not yet call __sk_free())
> 
> So we cheat a litle bit, because of this offset of one, we might block a sender a litle bit earlier :)

Now I understand, thanks!

Patch applied.
--
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