netdev - Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: convert bonding to use rx

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:	Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:14:30 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, fubar@...ibm.com,
	nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: convert bonding to use rx_handler

Le vendredi 18 février 2011 à 16:50 +0100, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> On 18.02.2011 15:58, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 03:46:45PM CET, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
> >> Am 18.02.2011 15:27, schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> >>> Le vendredi 18 février 2011 à 15:14 +0100, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Do not know how to do it better. As for percpu variable, not only
> >>>> origdev would have to be remembered but also probably skb pointer to
> >>>> know if it's the first run on the skb or not. Can't really figure out a
> >>>> better solution. Can you?
> >>>
> >>> I'll try and let you know.
> >>
> >> Why not simply do a lookup on skb->iif?
> > 
> > Well I was trying to avoid iterating over list of devices for each
> > incoming frame.
> > 
> 
> Well, there are a couple of holes on 64 bit, perhaps you can rearrange
> things and eliminate either iif or input_dev without increasing size
> since they appear to be redundant.

Jiri

I dont understand why netif_rx() is needed in your patch.

Can we stack 10 bond devices or so ???

If we avoid this stage and call the real thing (netif_receive_skb()),
then we dont need adding a field in each skb, since it can be carried by
a global variable (per cpu of course)

bond_handle_frame() being called from __netif_receive_skb() I believe it
can use netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx().

Same remark for vlan_on_bond_hook()



--
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