netdev - Re: kenel level packet capturing

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:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:16:01 +0530
From:	raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kenel level packet capturing

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:06 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:34:22 +0530
>
>> We have decided to use PF_RING(a kernel module to capture packets) for
>> the same due to the number of advantages.
>
> What "advantages"?  The AF_PACKET socket layer already upstream in the
> kernel supports every relevant performance feature PF_RING does, and
> then some.
I refered to the document on "A Measurement Study of Packet Reception
using Linux"[1]  which said pf_ring maintains
a ring buffer, so we dont have to issue a receive system call for each
packet in contrast to AF_PACKET which issues a system call for each
packet(pls correct me if i am wrong).

I would like to know can we use AF_PACKET services from a kernel
module as we are not bound to pf_ring and can use
AF_PACKET if its efficient and easy to use?


thanking,

Raviraj Joshi


[1]
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-11/ftp/pkt_recp/index.html
--
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