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, 19 Jul 2007 13:08:26 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> To: vinay ravuri <vinaynyc@...oo.com> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Socket Buffers and Memory Managment Hi. On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:51:03PM -0700, vinay ravuri (vinaynyc@...oo.com) wrote: > How about the following approach: > > I allocate an skb of 0 bytes and replace data element > of skb struct (i.e. skb.data = addr_given_by_hw) when > the h/w interrupts me with a packet. I register for a > destructor for this skb and when the kernel is ready > to free the skb, I make sure that my free is invoked - > Ofcourse this is assuming that their is a facility in > linux socket buffers to be able to do destructors. Is > this approach a viable, if so, are any gottcha's? It will not work, since kfree_skb() eventually tries to free skb->head into kmem cache, so you will need to hack kfree_skb() not to try to release that data at all. Likely the best zero-copy approach in your case is to use frag_list, but be ready that your netwrok will regularily stall - when hardware buffers are all in use and not yet freed, you will not be able to send/receive new packets, although amount of memory will allow that. > -Vinay -- 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