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: <20081118191004.GB14329@ioremap.net>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:10:04 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Johann Baudy <johaahn@...il.com>
Cc:	"Lovich, Vitali" <vlovich@...lcomm.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:49:00PM +0100, Johann Baudy (johaahn@...il.com) wrote:
> 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()?

If it meets your needs it is of course ok, but it has additional memory
management checks and other socket management bits. If it does not
matter, than everything is ok.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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