netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 take2] ipv6: udp: Optimise multicast reception

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:19:46 +0200
From:	Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@...acom.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	opurdila@...acom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 take2] ipv6: udp: Optimise multicast reception

În data de Vin 06 Noi 2009 19:06:30 Eric Dumazet a scris:
> +       for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +               skb1 = (i == final) ? skb : skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +
> +               if (skb1) {
> +                       sk = stack[i];
> +                       bh_lock_sock(sk);
> +                       if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
> +                               udpv6_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb1);
> +                       else
> +                               sk_add_backlog(sk, skb1);
> +                       bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> +               }
> +       }

Is there any reason to continue this loop if we ever get a NULL skb1?

If once we can't get a GFP_ATOMIC clone, are there merrits to calling 
skb_clone() like crazy (in a very tight loop) (whilst holding a spin lock in 
some cases)?

-- 
Lucian
--
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