netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: dsa: bcm

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]

Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:53:51 +0200
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
	idosch@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Add VLAN support

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 06/10/2016 05:00 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> @@ -148,6 +155,9 @@ struct bcm_sf2_priv {
> >>  	struct device_node		*master_mii_dn;
> >>  	struct mii_bus			*slave_mii_bus;
> >>  	struct mii_bus			*master_mii_bus;
> >> +
> >> +	/* Cache of programmed VLANs */
> >> +	struct bcm_sf2_vlan		vlans[VLAN_N_VID];
> > 
> > Hi Florian
> > 
> > This is a 16Kbyte array. So i assume the whole priv structure needs 5
> > pages. Have you had any trouble allocating this much memory,
> > particularly once it has been used for a while and fragmented?
> 
> Well, since this is using the old binding, we can't unload the driver,
> it's built into the kernel, so initializes early enough we have got
> plenty of memory.

Don't you want to use the new binding at some point?

> > I just wondered if it might be better to use vmalloc() for the
> > vlans.
> 
> That's a very good point, I can't really see a drawback to doing this,
> will submit a patch moving this to a dynamic allocation.
> 
> Another possible approach would have been to allocate the vlan structure
> upong port_vlan_prepare() though that would typically result in more
> fragmentation over time once se start using more VLANs.

It is a trade off, code complexity vs saved memory. I don't think such
a table is too bad, assuming your not trying to run the whole system
in 32Mbyes of RAM.

   Andrew