linux-kernel - Re: setting ICSK_CA_PRIV_SIZE larger than 16 * sizeof(u32)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080627143258.173120cd@extreme>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:32:58 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	"Kiran Kotla" <kotlakiran@...il.com>
Cc:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: setting ICSK_CA_PRIV_SIZE larger than 16 * sizeof(u32)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:20:10 -0500
"Kiran Kotla" <kotlakiran@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi david,
> 
> Thank you very much for your response. I am new to this forum and not
> sure if I could include you in my reply.
> 
> Well, we tried our best to reduce the size of our private variables.
> 
> The major consumers of space however are two arrays of 32 bit integers
> each of size '8', which are used to estimate drop probability and
> early congestion response probability (our protocol specific), which
> cannot be reduced to be 16 bit integers and further the size of the
> array cannot be reduced to some value lesser without degrading the
> estimation of drop probability.
> 
> I guess the only way left is to have a trade-off between the
> performance of our protocol and size of the array.
> 
> In any case, I was wondering if still there is a way to increase the
> size of the blob, though we would not to increase the size of blob to
> get our protocol running in the kernel.
> 
> Thanks again!
> Kiran

If need be you can use a pointer to an allocated array for that (it would be
up to your code to free it).  You might even want to make this per route
rather than per socket. That would require lookup/locking/ref counting, but
it would allow sharing path information when multiple sockets along same
path are present.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/