[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110118175143.3a164669@chocolatine.cbg.collabora.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:51:43 +0000
From: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ian Molton <ian.molton@...labora.co.uk>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com, xemul@...nvz.org,
davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: implement socket filter
Le Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:22:41 +0100,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> a écrit :
> Le mardi 18 janvier 2011 à 16:39 +0000, Ian Molton a écrit :
> > From: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
> >
> > Linux Socket Filters can already be successfully attached and
> > detached on unix sockets with setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET,
> > SO_{ATTACH,DETACH}_FILTER, ....). See:
> > Documentation/networking/filter.txt
> >
> > But the filter was never used in the unix socket code so it did not
> > work. This patch uses sk_filter() to filter buffers before delivery.
> >
> > This short program demonstrates the problem on SOCK_DGRAM.
By the way, the patch implements socket filters on SOCK_DGRAM and
SOCK_SEQPACKET but not SOCK_STREAM. Socket filters does not make sense
to me when there is no packet boundaries. But if there is a need for
it, the code for SOCK_STREAM could be added easily.
> Any idea on performance cost adding sk_filter() call ?
Ian will write a performance test and repost the patch with some stats.
I don't know about the performance cost.
> Hmm, looking at it, I have no idea why sk_filter() needs to block BH.
I don't know neither.
> I'll send a patch to relax this requirement.
Thanks for your review!
Alban
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists