netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 10/16] Don't lookup the socket if there's a socket attached to the skb

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]

Date:	Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:38:20 +0200
From:	KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 10/16] Don't lookup the socket if there's a	socket
 attached to the skb

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 07:50 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>
> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:24:31 +0200
> 
> > Use the socket cached in the TPROXY target if it's present.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@....bme.hu>
> 
> Ok, this starts to get into controversial territory.
> :-)
> 
> At the very least I think:
> 
> 1) We should do this unconditionally, and even put
>    a "unlikely" there in the test.
> 
> 2) Actually, the whole operation belongs in a generic
>    net/sock.h helper function, and this includes the
>    leading if() test.

The problem is that if you include the if() test then you have to
include the lookup call as well and that's different for TCP/UDP.

Of course we could create a generic helper that then calls the
appropriate lookup function but that's also an unnecessary extra branch,
isn't it?

-- 
KOVACS Krisztian

--
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