netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: define sctp_packet_gso

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: <20180613.190559.1358933130944096340.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     nhorman@...driver.com
Cc:     lucien.xin@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: define sctp_packet_gso_append to build
 GSO frames

From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:46:43 -0400

> Do you have any performance numbers to compare with and without this
> patch?  Adding a function like this implies that any fixes that go
> into skb_gro_receive now need to be evaluated for this function too,
> which means theres an implied overhead in maintaining it.  If we're
> signing up for that, I'd like to know that theres a significant
> performance benefit.

Neil, I asked Xin and Marcelo to do this.

There is no reason for GSO code to use a GRO helper.

And this is, in particular, blocking some skb_gro_receive() surgery
I plan to perform.