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  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]
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2014 13:38:18 +0100
From:	Wei Liu <>
To:	Stefan Bader <>
CC:	Wei Liu <>,
	Zoltan Kiss <>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <>, <>,
	<>, David Vrabel <>,
	"Konrad Wilk" <>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xen-netfront: try linearizing SKB if it
 occupies too many slots

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 02:28:17PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 30.05.2014 14:11, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:06:48AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I had been idly wondering about this onwards. And trying to understand the whole
> >> skb handling environment, I tried to come up with some idea as well. It may be
> >> totally stupid and using the wrong assumptions. It seems to work in the sense
> >> that things did not blow up into my face immediately and somehow I did not see
> >> dropped packages due to the number of slots either.
> >> But again, I am not sure I am doing the right thing. The idea was to just try to
> >> get rid of so many compound pages (which I believe are the only ones that can
> >> have an offset big enough to allow some alignment savings)...
> >>
> >> -Stefan
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks. I think the general idea is OK, but it still involves
> > unnecessary page allocation. We don't actually need to get rid of
> > compound page by replacing it with a new page, we just need to make sure
> > the data inside is aligned.
> > 
> > If you look at xennet_make_frags, it only grants the 4K page which
> > contains data. I presume a simple memove would be better than alloc_page
> > + memcpy. What do you think?
> > 
> > Like:
> >    memmove(page_address(fpage), page_address(fpage)+offset, size);
> >    frag->page_offset = 0;
> I was hesitating to do that as I could not really tell whether I can make any
> assumptions about those memory areas. So my cautious guess was to leave the
> original pages alone altogether (maybe whoever owns those has something
> important in the starting area). If I did it right, my new page potentially
> could be a smaller allocation unit than the original, since I only ask for
> something big enough to hold the frag size (ignoring a potential offset over
> full 4K areas).

Thanks for the explanation.


> -Stefan
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists