netdev - Re: AF_PACKET mmap() v4...

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: <AECBA5BB-2284-4C1E-ADCC-09B730D6EF9A@alum.mit.edu>
Date:	Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:14:51 -0800
From:	Guy Harris <guy@...m.mit.edu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: AF_PACKET mmap() v4...

On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:04 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> As part of fixing y2038 problems, Arnd is going to have to make a new
> version fo the AF_PACKET mmap() tpacker descriptors in order to extend
> the time values to 64-bit.
> 
> So I want everyone to think about whether there are any other changes
> we might want to make given that we have to make a v4 anyways.
> 
> Particularly, I am rather certain that the buffer management could be
> improved.  Some have complained that v3 is kinda awkward to use and/or
> suboptimal is various ways.

As a core libpcap developer, I will at least state that it works a *lot* better than v1 and v2 did.  Having buffer slots that can hold only one packet is *really* suboptimal for packet capture; having buffer slots that can hold multiple packets works a lot better, as there's less wasted memory.

I'll see whether there are any changes that *would* make libpcap's life better.--
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