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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists