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: <20151129.234955.2156041834628417171.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:49:55 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Luuk.Paulussen@...iedtelesis.co.nz
Cc:	lorenzo@...gle.com, Matt.Bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Increasing skb->mark size

From: Luuk Paulussen <Luuk.Paulussen@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:10:43 +0000

> 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?

Every distribtion will turn the option on.

Config options hiding "cost" is never an argument to bloat
a critical core datstructure up, sorry.

--
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