| 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: <CAKj1SsNO_uJuVtKs_-tygcd=QDesKkYa=9DVeajhK73LFV-opA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:16:01 +0530 From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: kenel level packet capturing On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:06 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@...il.com> > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:34:22 +0530 > >> We have decided to use PF_RING(a kernel module to capture packets) for >> the same due to the number of advantages. > > What "advantages"? The AF_PACKET socket layer already upstream in the > kernel supports every relevant performance feature PF_RING does, and > then some. I refered to the document on "A Measurement Study of Packet Reception using Linux"[1] which said pf_ring maintains a ring buffer, so we dont have to issue a receive system call for each packet in contrast to AF_PACKET which issues a system call for each packet(pls correct me if i am wrong). I would like to know can we use AF_PACKET services from a kernel module as we are not bound to pf_ring and can use AF_PACKET if its efficient and easy to use? thanking, Raviraj Joshi [1] http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-11/ftp/pkt_recp/index.html -- 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