netdev - Re: [PATCH] loopback: better handling of packet drops

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: <20090417.035112.171173490.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loopback: better handling of packet drops

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:33:33 +0200

> Splitting netif_rx() with a helper function boosts tbench
> performance by 1%, because we can avoid two tests (about netpoll and
> timestamping)

Loopback is not a special device no matter how much you wish
it might be :-)

This is why I haven't really pursued any further those patches I
showed you that treat local TCP connections specially, it just had the
realy possibility to break clever things people might be doing over
loopback using the packet scheduler classifier and packet scheduler
actions.

I also think it is valid to use netpoll over loopback, especially for
testing.

So please undo this part of the patch.  You always try to combine
multiple distinct changes, and I would have taken just your TX drop
change if you hadn't added this __netif_rx() stuff to it :-(
--
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