linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v10 0/5] net: devmem: improve cpu cost of RX token management

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: <20260121173755.2ddd0b08@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:37:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn
 <willemb@...gle.com>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, David Ahern
 <dsahern@...nel.org>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@...db.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, asml.silence@...il.com,
 matttbe@...nel.org, skhawaja@...gle.com, Bobby Eshleman
 <bobbyeshleman@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 0/5] net: devmem: improve cpu cost of RX
 token management

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 21:29:36 -0800 Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > IDK if the cmsg approach is still right for this flow TBH.
> > IIRC when Stan talked about this a while back we were considering doing
> > this via Netlink. Anything that proves that the user owns the binding
> > would work. IIUC the TCP socket in this design just proves that socket
> > has received a token from a given binding right?  
> 
> In both designs the owner of the binding starts of as the netlink opener,
> and then ownership spreads out to TCP sockets as packets are steered to
> them. Tokens are received by the user which gives them a share in the
> form of references on the pp and binding. This design follows the same
> approach... but I may be misinterpreting what you mean by ownership?

What I was getting at was the same point about socket A vs socket B as
I made on the doc patch. IOW the kernel only tracks how many tokens it
gave out for a net_iov, there's no socket state beyond the binding
pointer. Right?