netdev - Re: Increasing skb->mark size

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: <565BCC42.7020701@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:10:43 +0000
From:	Luuk Paulussen <Luuk.Paulussen@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"lorenzo@...gle.com" <lorenzo@...gle.com>
CC:	Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Increasing skb->mark size

On 11/30/2015 02:58 PM, David Miller wrote:
> If you guys, really anyone, can find a way to remove some other 32-bit 
> item from sk_buff, you can expand skb->mark to 64-bits. But otherwise, 
> I'm going to be strongly against it. sk_buff is already enormous and 
> larger than it should be. So I'm going to resist any change that makes 
> it even larger. Thanks. 
Would the level of objection be the same if this was done as an 
"extended mark" field under a configurable off-by-default option? This 
would allow users who need this functionality to enable it while making 
it clear that this is at the expense of increasing sk_buff size.--
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