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]

Message-ID: <20181211101841.oyacneho4724tzmj@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:18:41 +0100
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: switch secpath to use skb extension
 infrastructure

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.