netdev - Re: [RFC 1/6] net: extend ubuf_info callback to ops structure

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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 01:07:37 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
 io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] net: extend ubuf_info callback to ops structure

On 4/14/24 18:07, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> We'll need to associate additional callbacks with ubuf_info, introduce
>> a structure holding ubuf_info callbacks. Apart from a more smarter
>> io_uring notification management introduced in next patches, it can be
>> used to generalise msg_zerocopy_put_abort() and also store
>> ->sg_from_iter, which is currently passed in struct msghdr.
> 
> This adds an extra indirection for all other ubuf implementations.
> Can that be avoided?

It could be fitted directly into ubuf_info, but that doesn't feel
right. It should be hot, so does it even matter? On the bright side,
with the patch I'll also ->sg_from_iter from msghdr into it, so it
doesn't have to be in the generic path.

I think it's the right approach, but if you have a strong opinion
I can fit it as a new field in ubuf_info.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov