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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:24:55 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <>
To:	Michal Kazior <>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Neal Cardwell <>,
	linux-wireless <>,
	Network Development <>,
	Eyal Perry <>
Subject: Re: Throughput regression with `tcp: refine TSO autosizing`

On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 08:48 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote:

> > Good point. I was actually thinking about it. I can try cooking a
> > patch unless you want to do it yourself :-)
> I've taken a look into this. The most obvious place to add the
> timestamp for each packet would be ieee80211_tx_info (i.e. the
> skb->cb[48]). The problem is it's very tight there. Even squeezing 2
> bytes (allowing up to 64ms of tx completion delay which I'm worried
> won't be enough) will be troublesome. Some drivers already use every
> last byte of their allowance on 64bit archs (e.g. ar5523 uses entire
> 40 bytes of driver_data).

Couldn't we just repurpose the existing skb->tstamp field for this, as
long as the skb is fully contained within the wireless layer?

Actually, it looks like we can't, since I guess timestamping options can
be turned on on any socket.

> I wonder if it's okay to bump skb->cb to 56 bytes to avoid the cascade
> of changes required to implement the tx completion delay accounting?

I have no doubt that would be rejected :)


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