| 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: <20130522143100.GE17292@obelix.rh> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:31:00 -0300 From: Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: RFC limit sk_mem_quantum to 8192 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:21:01PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 22:58 -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:09:22PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > Are you sure a network driver doesn't provide skb using a full page ? > > > > You lost me. You're saying that today we consider a page size > > a minimum and so if we reduce that, the skb wouldn't fit in the > > min sk memory? > > SK_MEM_QUANTUM is also used in UDP stack, thats why I am asking. Yeah, it is. SCTP too, but for the protocol cases, the most complex one appears to be TCP, and it doesn't seem to be a problem to replace the minimum with something not page sized. For the drivers, it seems to have an indirect assumption that page size bytes is a minimum acceptable, so changing this minimum could cause a performance issue. Well, this define is quite old, so I am not sure if there are other historical reasons to keep it page size. However, if the idea of fixing SK_MEM_QUANTUM to 4k seems reasonable, I am willing to spend more time digging into this. Thanks! -- fbl -- 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