netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping

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: <1394708555.25873.43.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:02:35 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>,
	<wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX
 grant mapping

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:56 +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> >> @@ -135,13 +146,31 @@ struct xenvif {
> >>  	pending_ring_idx_t pending_cons;
> >>  	u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> >>  	struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> >> +	grant_handle_t grant_tx_handle[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> >>  
> >>  	/* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant
> >>  	 * copy ops greater or equal to number of slots required. In
> >>  	 * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy.
> >>  	 */
> >>  	struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> >> -
> >> +	struct gnttab_map_grant_ref tx_map_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> >> +	struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref tx_unmap_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > 
> > I wonder if we should break some of these arrays into separate
> > allocations? Wasn't there a problem with sizeof(struct xenvif) at one
> > point?
> 
> alloc_netdev() falls back to vmalloc() if the kmalloc failed so there's
> no need to split these structures.

Is vmalloc space in abundant supply? For some reason I thought it was
limited (maybe that's a 32-bit only limitation?)

--
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