netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next? 1/1] netlabel: return msg overflow error from netlbl_cipsov4

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: <1215778392.7001.25.camel@iris.sw.ru>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:13:12 +0400
From:	"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next? 1/1] netlabel: return msg overflow error from
	netlbl_cipsov4_list faster

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 07:01 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Friday 11 July 2008 6:45:49 am Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > Currently, we are trying to place the information from the kernel to
> > 1, 2, 3 and 4 pages sequentially. These pages are allocated via slab.
> > Though, from the slab point of view steps 3 and 4 are equivalent on
> > most architectures. So, lets skip 3 pages attempt.
> >
> > By the way, should we switch from .doit to .dumpit interface here?
> > The amount of data seems quite big for me.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@...nvz.org>
> 
> I'll add my ack to this patch because your logic sounds reasonable and 
> I'm glad to have more eyes on the code :)
cool :)

> However, I not a big fan of converting this from a .doit to a .dumpit 
> interface because this would cause userspace breakage.  We could 
> potentially do both for backwards compatibility but I have no idea if 
> it is possible to have both interfaces available at the same time.  One 
> thing to keep in mind before diving into your favorite editor is that 
> I've yet to hear of there being a problem with this NetLabel command 
> and the .doit interface, we may want to hold off to see if it becomes 
> an issue.
> 
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>

for the dumpip interface. 2-order page is a real pain on the heavy
loaded systems. Yes, the allocation will not fail, but it can take a
significant amount of time to perform the allocation.

I understand your logic with keeping this interface, but such allocation
can take > 1 sec for sure.

--
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