netdev - Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

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:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:57:37 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, gaagaan@...il.com,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org,
	johnpol@....mipt.ru, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com, mcarlson@...adcom.com,
	mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, rdreier@...co.com,
	rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, sri@...ibm.com,
	tgraf@...g.ch, xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your comments.

Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote on 07/20/2007 03:34:30 PM:

> The queue length can be changed through multiple interfaces, if that
> really is important you need to catch these cases too.

I have a TODO comment in net-sysfs.c which is to catch this case.

> > +      } else {
> > +         dev->skb_blist = kmalloc(sizeof *dev->skb_blist,
> > +                   GFP_KERNEL);
>
>
> Why not simply put the head in struct net_device? It seems to me that
> this could also be used for gso_skb.

Without going into GSO, it is wasting some 32 bytes on i386 since most
drivers
don't export this API.

> Queue purging should be done in dev_deactivate.

I originally had it in dev_deactivate, but when I did a ifdown eth0, ifup
eth0,
the system panic'd. The first solution I thought was to initialize the
skb_blist
in dev_change_flags() rather than in register_netdev(), but then felt that
a
series of ifup/ifdown will unnecessarily check stuff/malloc/free/initialize
stuff,
and so thought of putting it in unregister_netdev (where it is balanced
with
register_netdev).

Is there any reason to move this ?

Thanks,

- KK

-
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