netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] flow: virtualize get and entry deletion methods

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	timo.teras@....fi
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] flow: virtualize get and entry deletion methods

From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:24:50 +0200

> This allows to validate the cached object before returning it.
> It also allows to destruct object properly, if the last reference
> was held in flow cache. This is also a prepartion for caching
> bundles in the flow cache.
> 
> In return for virtualizing the methods, we save on:
> - not having to regenerate the whole flow cache on policy removal:
>   each flow matching a killed policy gets refreshed as the getter
>   function notices it smartly.
> - we do not have to call flow_cache_flush from policy gc, since the
>   flow cache now properly deletes the object if it had any references
> 
> This also means the flow cache entry deletion does more work. If
> it's too slow now, may have to implement delayed deletion of flow
> cache entries. But this is a save because this enables immediate
> deletion of policies and bundles.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>

I'm concerned about the new costs being added here.

We have to now take the policy lock as a reader every time the flow
cache wants to grab a reference.  So we now have this plus the
indirect function call new overhead.

Maybe we can make the dead state check safe to do asynchronously
somehow?  I wonder if the policy layer is overdue for an RCU
conversion or similar.

Anyways, something to think about.  Otherwise I don't mind these
changes.

--
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