linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: forbid direct reclaim if MSG

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]

Message-ID: <CANn89i+-g5DEnrv0DSCsMq3fXo35mAaOmXvf1Tr22Ybif1OV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:38:39 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: forbid direct reclaim if MSG_DONTWAIT is
 set in send path

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:58 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>

> We do not add bloat in the kernel if no application is ever going to
> use it, especially in the TCP fast path.
>

BTW, are you willing to change all memory allocations in the kernel as well ?

Let say an application is using a system call providing a pathname
(open(), stat(), ...), how this system call
is going to ask the kernel for no direct reclaim ?

Even allocating a socket with socket() or accept() has no ability to
avoid direct reclaim.

So tcp_sendmsg() is only the tip of the iceberg.