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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1461077434.10638.189.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:50:34 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 7/8] net: ipv4: listified version of ip_rcv On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 14:37 +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > Also involved adding a way to run a netfilter hook over a list of packets. > Rather than attempting to make netfilter know about lists (which would be > horrendous) we just let it call the regular okfn (in this case > ip_rcv_finish()) for any packets it steals, and have it give us back a list > of packets it's synchronously accepted (which normally NF_HOOK would > automatically call okfn() on, but we want to be able to potentially pass > the list to a listified version of okfn().) > > There is potential for out-of-order receives if the netfilter hook ends up > synchronously stealing packets, as they will be processed before any accepts > earlier in the list. However, it was already possible for an asynchronous > accept to cause out-of-order receives, so hopefully I haven't broken > anything that wasn't broken already. > > Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> > --- We have hard time to deal with latencies already, and maintaining some sanity in the stack(s) This is not going to give us a 10x or even 2x improvement factor, so what about working on something that would really lower cache line misses and use pipelines to amortize the costs ? The main problem in UDP stack today is having to lock the socket because of the dumb forward allocation problem. Are you really going to provide a list of skbs up to _one_ UDP socket ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists