netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next-2.6 0/5] XFRM,IPv6: Removal of RH2/HAO from IPsec-protected MIPv6 traffic

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: <20100928.144005.260072379.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	arno@...isbad.org
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next-2.6 0/5] XFRM,IPv6: Removal of RH2/HAO from
 IPsec-protected MIPv6 traffic

From: arno@...isbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:33:16 +0200

> Before following the (dumb) #ifdef path, I was about to do that but
> worried about the penalty of the additional xfrm_state_get/put_afinfo()
> calls on each packet I was about to add. Should I just reduce my amount
> of coffee or is it a valid concern?

Indeed, it is.

Even without the concern of afinfo refcounting, this test is very
heavy handed for the packet path.

Can you make it small enough that it can reasonably be inlined?
--
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