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 15:00:12 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Brice Goglin <>,, Divy Le Ray <>
Subject: Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi, Jarek.
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski ( 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.

Of course, my knowledge of this is far not enough, and maybe
I got this reversed, but from Andi's words I've understood
that linux prefers another (mixed) approach, so I've thought
such list should be a consequence...

Jarek P.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists