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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4AF45BDE.4090501@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:24:46 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@...acom.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 Lucian Adrian Grijincu a écrit : > 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)? > Well, because of future RCU patch, I'll need to continue the loop anyway, because sock_put() will be part of the loop. Also, the 'final' case will at least provide the skb we already have. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists