netdev - Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX

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: <7e0dd21a0811181049i45c4ffd6md964f6acfa0d4c79@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:49:00 +0100
From:	"Johann Baudy" <johaahn@...il.com>
To:	"Evgeniy Polyakov" <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc:	"Lovich, Vitali" <vlovich@...lcomm.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING

Hi Evgeniy,

> If you _do_ want to make it that way, you can remove destructor at all
> and implement own packet-socket-only allocation policy and thus have own
> private destructor without extending skb.

Currently, we are executing sock_alloc_send_skb() to allocate a new
skb from socket.
Then, we replace destructor sock_wfree() with our destructor
packet_skb_destruct() which executes sock_wfree() once status of
packet frame (associated to skb data) has been given back to user
(status changed).

Is this way ok ?
Or shall we implement our own sock_alloc_send_skb()?

Thanks in advance,
Johann

-- 
Johann Baudy
johaahn@...il.com
--
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