netdev - Re: setting ICSK_CA_PRIV_SIZE larger than 16 * sizeof(u32)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080627.023046.193703830.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kotlakiran@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: setting ICSK_CA_PRIV_SIZE larger than 16 * sizeof(u32)

From: "Kiran Kotla" <kotlakiran@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:37:59 -0500

[ Changed linux-net to netdev.  linux-net is for user questions,
  netdev is for development discussion... ]

> The only other option we have to get the kernel running with our
> protocol is to reduce the number of private variables and this is not
> possible without affecting the behavior of our protocol.

I severely doubt this.  25 32-bit state variables is just way
over the top.

Don't give up so easily.  Maybe some values can be 16-bit instead
of 32-bit.

Perhaps pairs of two odd-sized values can be encoded into a single
32-bit (one is 7 bits, the other is <= 25 bits).

Get creative.

I'm going to be very much an asshole about making that blob any
bigger, because it means every single socket in the kernel will get
bigger even if they don't use your congestion control algorithm.
--
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