netdev - Re: UDP "accept" proposed

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: <51C02DD9.3050308@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:52:25 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	James Yonan <james@...nvpn.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UDP "accept" proposed

On 06/18/2013 10:48 AM, James Yonan wrote:
[...]
> This is a disaster from a performance perspective because you can't take a UDP server that
 > binds to a single port and efficiently scale it up across multiple threads or processors
 > because you must operate off a single socket.
[...]
> But this would be a huge performance win for UDP servers (I'm thinking about OpenVPN in
 > particular) because making the kernel smarter about dispatching UDP datagrams would make it
 > much easier to develop scalable UDP servers on Linux.

So SO_REUSEPORT that was added in 3.9 by Tom Herbert wouldn't
help in your case (+ f.e. steering flows to CPUs locally) ?

   https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/
--
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