netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] unix: add read side socket memory accounting for dgram sockets

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: <20140219200811.GE1179@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:08:11 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yannick@...hler.name,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dan@...dstab.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] unix: add read side socket memory accounting for dgram sockets

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:49:27PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:03:53 +0100
> 
> > We still allocate dgram packets with sock_alloc_send_pskb, which now
> > does normally not block if the socket has too many packets in flight.
> 
> It seems like it does to me, it does sock_wait_for_wmem(), right?

We still do the sock_wait_for_wmem in sock_alloc_send_pskb, correct,
but we rarly block there, maybe in highly concurrent cases with big
payloads where one process got interrupted to account the memory to the
receiving socket.

> Or are you trying to say that usually this is not the point at which
> we block, but rather it's when we check the peer's receive queue?

Exactly.

Bye,

  Hannes

--
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