netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: tcp: remove per net tcp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120719.101155.1970854797296520147.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com, wsommerfeld@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: tcp: remove per net tcp_sock

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:07:47 +0200

> On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 08:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
>> 
>> > Looks great, applied, thanks Eric.
>> 
>> I take that back, it doesn't build:
>> 
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c: In function ‘ip_send_unicast_reply’:
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:1: error: section attribute cannot be specified for local variables
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:1: error: section attribute cannot be specified for local variables
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:1: error: declaration of ‘__pcpu_unique_unicast_sock’ with no linkage follows extern declaration
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:1: note: previous declaration of ‘__pcpu_unique_unicast_sock’ was here
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:9: error: section attribute cannot be specified for local variables
>> net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481:9: error: weak declaration of ‘unicast_sock’ must be public
> 
> Strange, it builds on my machines, and I got nice performance boost.
> 
> Apparently your arch doesnt handle the 
> 
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct inet_sock, unicast_sock)
> 
> in the function body ?

It's x86-64, standard Fedora 17 install.