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  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:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:28:50 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...-lyon.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	Divy Le Ray <divy@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

On 05-07-2007 12:08, Andi Kleen wrote:
...
> The traditional standpoint was that having your own large skb pools 
> is not recommended because you won't interact well with the 
> rest of the system running low on memory and you tieing up 
> memory.
> 
> Essentially you would recreate all the problems traditional Unix
> systems have with fixed size mbuf pools. Linux always used a more
> dynamic and flexible allocate-only-as-you-need approach even when it
> can have a little more overhead in managing IOMMUs etc.

I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
copying or adding new fields for private infos?

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists