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: <20100912105833.GB2056@del.dom.local> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:58:33 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: pskb_expand_head() optimization On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:45:34PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 08:30:02PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> > > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:31:40 +0200 > > > > > Otherwise seems OK, but I still would like to know the scenario > > > demanding this change. > > > > I want to make sk_buff use list_head, including all uses such as > > frag_list et al. > > > > If the frag_list chain can be shared, a doubly linked list cannot be > > used. > > > > This is someting I've been gradually working on now for more than 2 > > years :) > > Hmm... Then the first message/changelog in this thread seems to > describe the future bug, only with doubly linked lists. If so, it was > a bit misleading to me ;-) > > Then a few more questions: > 1) if doubly linked lists really require such pskb_copying, isn't it > all too costly? > 2) why skb_clone isn't enough instead of pskb_copy? > 3) since skb_clone has some cost too, why e.g. saving only the pointer > to the tail of the list in skb_shared_info isn't enough? ...3a) IOW, do we really need this double linking... Jarek P. -- 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