netdev - Re: [PATCH]: rfs: record flow in TCP receiving and sending pathes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	xiaosuo@...il.com
Cc:	therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: rfs: record flow in TCP receiving and sending pathes

From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Date: Fri,  9 Jul 2010 15:28:18 +0800

> rfs: record flow in TCP receiving and sending pathes
> 
> call sock_rps_record_flow() in function tcp_splice_read(), tcp_sendpage() and
> tcp_sendmsg().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>

I don't think it's wise to pepper these calls all over the place if it
is not necessary.

The only reason we vector straight to the TCP implementations of these
I/O routines is to avoid the port autobinding made by the inet_*()
functions.

But now that avoids also the RPS calls.

So it makes sense to just add a boolean state bit flag of some sort
to "struct proto" which says to avoid the autobind calls, then
make TCP vector through the inet_*() functions just like the other
inet protocols do.

Then these extra send_rps_record_flow() annotations will not be
necessary.
--
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