netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: switch secpath to use skb extension infrastructure

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:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:20:42 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: switch secpath to use skb extension
 infrastructure

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:50:06PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > >  }
> > > @@ -552,11 +517,6 @@ void __init xfrm_input_init(void)
> > >  	if (err)
> > >  		gro_cells.cells = NULL;
> > >  
> > > -	secpath_cachep = kmem_cache_create("secpath_cache",
> > > -					   sizeof(struct sec_path),
> > > -					   0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC,
> > > -					   NULL);
> > 
> > This is not so nice. Usually we need a secpath per packet for IPsec.
> > With removing the cache, we have to kmalloc a secpath for each packet.
> > This might have some performance impact.
> 
> I would expect that the extension allocations come from
> kmalloc-96 cache in 'ipsec only' case.
> 
> I can run a few IPSEC benchmark tests to see if there is measureable
> impact.

That would be good, thanks!