netdev - Re: Netlink mmap tx security?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:07:53 +0100
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, luto@...capital.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Netlink mmap tx security?

On 10/16/14 at 08:45am, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 04:09 AM, David Miller wrote:
> >That would work as well.
> >
> >There are pros and cons to all of these approaches.
> >
> >I was thinking that if we do the "TX mmap --> copy to kernel buffer"
> >approach, then if in the future we find a way to make it work
> >reliably, we can avoid the copy.  And frankly performance wise it's no
> >worse than what happens via normal sendmsg() calls.
> >
> >And all applications using NETLINK_RX_RING keep working and keep
> >getting the performance boost.
> 
> That would be better, yes. This would avoid having such a TPACKET_V*
> API chaos we have in packet sockets if this could be fixed for netlink
> eventually.

Only saw the second part of Dave's message now. I agree that this
is even a better option.
--
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