netdev - Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

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]

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