netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.25 3/3] Uninline the inet_twsk

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: <20071220.160840.140150524.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:08:40 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	netdev@...eo.de
Cc:	xemul@...nvz.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.25 3/3] Uninline the inet_twsk_put function

From: Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:32:45 +0100

> static inline inet_twsk_put(struct inet_timewait_sock *tw)
> {
> 	kref_put(&tw->kref, inet_twsk_release);
> }
> 
> David, can you see any reason (e.g. some crazy lock stuff) NOT to do this?

Look at how this datastructure actually works before making
such suggestions, don't just look at the context provided
purely by a patch.

"inet_timewait_sock" begins with a "struct sock_common"
which is where the atomic_t is, and:

#define tw_refcnt		__tw_common.skc_refcnt

So you would have to change struct sock_common over to kref, and thus
the entire networking, in order to make such a change.

I see zero value in this.  There are millions of more useful things to
invest that kind of time on.

But you would have seen this instantly if you had spent 5 seconds
looking at how these datastructures are defined.  Instead you choose
to make me do it and explain it to you instead.
--
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