netdev - Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk

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: <20070822212005.GR32236@postel.suug.ch>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:20:05 +0200
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff

* Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com> 2007-08-22 16:31
> We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the problem, 
> including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the ideas was to 
> add an additional field to the sk_buff structure.  Knowing how well that idea 
> would go over (lead balloon is probably an understatement at best) I started 
> looking at what I might be able to remove from the sk_buff struct to make 
> room for a new field (the new field would be a u32).  Looking at the sk_buff 
> structure it appears that the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit 
> redundant and removing the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending 
> on the platform.  Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the 
> sk_buff.dev field around?  Would the community be open to patches which 
> removed it and transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field?  Finally, 
> assuming the sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to 
> adding a new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct?

This reminds of an idea someone brought up a while ago, it involved
having a way to attach additional space to an sk_buff for all the
different marks and other non-essential fields.

I think skb->dev is required because we need to have a reference on the
device while a packet being processing is put on a queue somewhere.
-
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