netdev - Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

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]

Date:	Wed, 6 Jun 2012 20:24:00 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

On 2012-06-06, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:01:40 +0000 (UTC)
>
>> That's what I'll do as soon as I can find a definition of what the API
>> for alloc_skb() actually _is_.  It has clearly changed in the past few
>> years.
>
> And it will continue to change.  There are no stable APIs inside of
> the kernel, none.

Oh, I know (as does anybody who has maintained a driver for more than
a few months).  Right now, I'm just trying to find out what the
current API for alloc_skb() is.

Is skb_tailroom() guaranteed to be >= the requested size?

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm wet!  I'm wild!
                                  at               
                              gmail.com            

--
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