netdev - Re: [RFC] bpf: change bpf syacall to use u64 temp variables

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: <5624AFFA.2010209@iogearbox.net>
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:55:22 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:	yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>, ast@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf: change bpf syacall to use u64 temp variables

On 10/19/2015 09:10 AM, yalin wang wrote:
> This patch change map_lookup_elem() and map_update_elem() function
> to use u64 temp variable if the key_size or value_size is less than
> u64, we don't need use kmalloc() for these small variables.
>
> Signed-off-by: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>

 From an application PoV that has to make the bpf(2) syscall, how
much do we actually gain from this? I'm curious, did you perform
some benchmarks that show a noticeable difference?
--
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