netdev - Re: [Patch 4/5] Network Drop Monitor: Adding drop monitor implementation & Netlink protocol

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:	Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:14:50 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, nhorman@...driver.com,
	zbr@...emap.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 4/5] Network Drop Monitor: Adding drop monitor	implementation
 & Netlink protocol

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 05:06:40PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Yes, that should always work. For new stuff I think we should try
>> to avoid encapsulating larger structures in single attributes though
>> since it forces us to do copy everything, instead of just the types
>> that really require it (and the padding issues in case of at least
>> non-priviledged interfaces).
> 
> Are there any situations where we want to use a struct? Perhaps
> we can just ban it altogether for new code?

I'd prefer that as well. The only reason to do this is to save a few
bytes and cycles for attribute encapsulation. I don't think this
matters at all, judging by the fact that I've never seen a userspace
implementation using message batching, the current users don't seem
to care about performance *that* much.
--
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