netdev - Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

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: <20151030223317.GK22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:33:17 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:50:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Anyway. This is a pretty simple patch, and I actually think that we
> could just get rid of the "next_fd" logic entirely with this. That
> would make this *patch* be more complicated, but it would make the
> resulting *code* be simpler.

Dropping next_fd would screw you in case of strictly sequential allocations...

Your point re power-of-two allocations is well-taken, but then I'm not
sure that kzalloc() is good enough here.  Look: you have a bit for every
64 descriptors, i.e. byte per 512.  On 10M case Eric had been talking
about that'll yield 32Kb worth of your secondary bitmap.  It's right on
the edge of the range where vmalloc() becomes attractive; for something
bigger it gets even worse...

Currently we go for vmalloc (on bitmaps) once we are past 128K descriptors
(two bitmaps packed together => 256Kbit = 32Kb).  kmalloc() is very
sensitive to size being a power of two, but IIRC vmalloc() isn't...
--
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