netdev - Re: can we reuse an 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1245681189.4541.49.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:03:09 +0530
From:	Philby John <pjohn@...mvista.com>
To:	Peter Chacko <peterchacko35@...il.com>
Cc:	Nicholas Van Orton <turanammo@...il.com>, jon_zhou@...lent.com,
	radhamohan_ch@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can we reuse an skb

On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:26 +0530, Peter Chacko wrote:
> Philby,
> 
> I thank you much for your time helping me out, answering me.
> 
> My intention here is to customize packet buffer allocation for
> special case, when the linux box in question is just packet processor.
>  That i don't want to allocate memory from a common pool for common
> purpose, like slab cached , re-usable objects like skb. I want to have
> finer control of the memory access time(by allocating objects from L1
> cache, and  keeping it around as fixed no of  packet buffers, like in
> a typical routers.
> 
I am ignorant of a method that can use L1 cache in a predictable manner,
either that or the task at hand is very specific to your line of work.
In that case, you are on the right track.

> I just want to know whether i can re-use any body's work /a patch
> available in this goal, before  i embark on making custom code.
> 
Not that I know of. Sorry :(

Regards,
Philby




> As you said, i will down-load the most updated code and correct my
> self, if there are enough optimizations available already.
> 
> Thanks
> Peter chacko,
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Philby John<pjohn@...mvista.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 15:41 +0530, Nicholas Van Orton wrote:
> >> Does this mean that when skb buffer has been allocated using
> >> dev_alloc_skb(), filled with received data and passed to the upper
> >> layers
> >> the kernel would automatically do the task of releasing this buffer
> >> without the user calling dev_kfree_skb()?
> >
> > Yes, I think that is the case. Except when the user calls an ioctl that
> > closes your ethernet device, by say using $ifconfig eth0 down, in which
> > case you must free the ring skb buffer's allocated using
> > dev_kfree_skb().
> >
> >>  I once got
> >> KERNEL: assertion (!atomic_read(&skb->users)) failed at net/core/dev.c
> >> errors when trying
> >> to free them using dev_kfree_skb()
> >>
> >> Could this be cause I did not wait until netif_rx_completed() was called?
> >
> > You are using an old version of the kernel, can't see such code in
> > 2.6.30. From what I know, this usually happens if skb->users is not
> > equal to one, which means the buffer is in use by some user. Like I
> > said, you needn't call dev_kfree_skb() explicitly, it will be freed
> > after use by the upper network layers.
> >
> > netif_receive_skb() ->deliver_skb()-> pt_prev->func() ->
> > ip_rcv() -> ip_rcv_finish()
> >
> > ip_rcv_finish() would finally free it as per the specified protocol.
> > This I think is the flow, but I guess there would be experts here who
> > would correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > -Philby
> >
> >

--
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