netdev - Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram

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: <20170217.105420.2167024053308682803.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:54:20 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, rlwinm@....org,
        alexmcwhirter@...adic.us, chunkeey@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter()
 et.al.

From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 +0000

> OK...  Remaining interesting question is whether it adds a noticable
> overhead.  Could somebody try it on assorted benchmarks and see if
> it slows the things down?  The patch in question follows:

That's about a 40 byte copy onto the stack for each invocation of this
thing.  You can benchmark all you want, but it's clear that this is
non-trivial amount of work and will take some operations from fitting
in the cache to not doing so for sure.