netdev - Re: SKB paged fragment lifecycle on receive

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, 24 Jun 2011 15:48:21 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: SKB paged fragment lifecycle on receive

On 06/24/2011 03:44 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> One problem with this is that some functions (__pskb_pull_tail) drop the
> ref count and then remove the page from the skb's fraglist. So by the
> time the destructor is called you have lost the page and cannot do the
> refcount checking.
>
> I suppose we could keep a queue of _all_ pages we ever put in an SKB
> which we poll.

Right, that seems like the only way to make sure we don't lose anything.

>  We could still check for pages with count==1 in the
> destructor. Apart from the other issues with the destructor not being
> copied over clone etc which would cause us to fall-back to polling the
> queue more often than not I reckon.

Yeah, sounds like it.

>> That said, I think an event-based rather than polling based mechanism
>> would be much more preferable.
> Absolutely.

>From what Eric and David were saying, it seems we don't really have any
other workable options.

    J
--
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