netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 00/12] net: stmmac: Clean-up and tune-up

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:   Wed, 16 May 2018 14:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com,
        Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 00/12] net: stmmac: Clean-up and tune-up

From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:50:42 +0100

> David raised some rightfull constrains about the use of indirect callbacks in
> the code. I did iperf tests with and without patches 3-12 and the performance
> remained equal. I guess for 1Gb/s and because my setup has a powerfull
> processor these patches don't affect the performance.

Does your cpu need Spectre v1 and v2 workarounds which cause indirect calls to
be extremely expensive?

That's the case I'm worried about.