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]

Message-ID: <20070705122847.GA13368@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:28:47 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...-lyon.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Divy Le Ray <divy@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

Hi, Jarek.

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski (jarkao2@...pl) wrote:
> 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?

There should not be any additional allocations, since they are very
slow, that part of mbuf is really horrible for performance - openbsd
hackers removed additional allocation of mbuf tag in PF code during the
last hackathon, which doubled its performance, that is why skb has only 
one control structure and data area, which incorporates additional 
control information, thus there is no need for multiple destructors.

> Regards,
> Jarek P.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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