netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: cache bundle lookup results in flow cache

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: <20100321.182627.214231065.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	timo.teras@....fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: cache bundle lookup results in flow cache

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:17:51 +0800

> Now Dave, my impression is that we picked the per-cpu design
> because it was the best data structure we had back in 2002,
> right?

Basically.

It was envisioned that flows at that level of detail would be spread
between different cpus, and that individual flows wouldn't propagate
onto multiple cpus much, if at all.  And if they did, no big deal we
have an entry in the cache of those cpus.

Do we know cases where it happens often?

In any event, RCU would certainly fit the bill just as easily and I
have no qualms against going in that direction.

Timo mentioned the socket overrides, we handle them at the top level
right before we look into the flow cache and I think it should stay
that way and we shouldn't bother tossing those into the flow cache at
all.  Just my humble opinion on this :-)
--
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