netdev - Re: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation

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: <20120214.164807.1861862972661744092.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:48:07 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	gregory.v.rose@...el.com
Cc:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation

From: "Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:41:57 +0000

> The second item sort of matches what I said in the last reply.  Base
> the buffer allocation size on the maximum possible for the given
> extension which as I said, is up to 255 VFs for the case under
> immediate consideration.

That's what we're trying to avoid, because that will result in multi-order
allocations (which are failure prone) when most of the time such a large
buffer is entirely unnecessary.

> The first one seems like a good idea but I wonder what the effect
> would be on a system with a large number of interfaces.

It's already expensive to dump a large number of devices, and in
effect you'll be optimizing the buffer allocation which could in fact
end up helping performance.
--
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