netdev - Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

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: <200804211817.01189.tomasz@grobelny.oswiecenia.net>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:17:00 +0200
From:	Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Cc:	dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

Dnia Monday 21 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał:
> Em Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 01:45:20PM +0200, Patrick McHardy escreveu:
> > Tomasz Grobelny wrote:
> >> 2. If the sole purpose of this change was to keep skb->cb zeroed then it
> >> doesn't seem to me like the right solution. Wasting about 20 bytes
> >> instead of zeroing them when needed I would consider at least weird. I
> >> understand that TCP and UDP may have enough space left but it just
> >> turned out that DCCP doesn't.
> >
> > It was the safest solution that late in a release. It also
> > avoids to memset the cb unnecessarily. If the room is not
> > enough anymore, its easy to go back to using memset.
>
> Nod, if we don't need the space reserved for the lower layer protocols
> in DCCP it is actually the best solution, as we don't need to zero the
> cb again before passing it to IP, it gets zeroed at alloc_skb time and
> that is it. If we need the space, we have to pay the price of
> memset before passing to IP.
>
Ok, so in this case the patch for DCCP could be reverted in test tree, is that 
right? Were these two deleted memsets zeroing all that was necessary or were 
there any other bugs fixed by the patch?
If we iron this out we could finally return to the main subject of this 
thread. That is Patch v2 by me and Gerrit...
-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Grobelny
--
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