netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: sock_def_readable() and friends RCU conversion

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: <20100430.163519.133415203.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eilong@...adcom.com,
	bmb@...enacr.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: sock_def_readable() and friends RCU
 conversion

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:01:49 +0200

> [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: sock_def_readable() and friends RCU conversion

So what's the difference between call_rcu() freeing this little waitqueue
struct and doing it for the entire socket?

We'll still be doing an RCU call every socket destroy, and now we also have
a new memory allocation/free per connection.

This has to show up in things like 'lat_connect' and friends, does it not?
--
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