netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add 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: <20181219.110222.2160722788800016798.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:02:22 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     fw@...len.de
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:15:14 +0100

> TL;DR:
>  - objdiff shows no change if CONFIG_XFRM=n && BR_NETFILTER=n
>  - small size reduction when one or both options are set
>  - no changes in ipsec performance
> 
>  Changes since v1:
>  - Allocate entire extension space from a kmem_cache.
>  - Avoid atomic_dec_and_test operation on skb_ext_put() for refcnt == 1 case.
>    (similar to kfree_skbmem() fclone_ref use).
> 
> This adds an optional extension infrastructure, with ispec (xfrm) and
> bridge netfilter as first users.
 ...

Hey Florian, I just wanted to let you know that I'm actively reviewing this.

I have no major issues with the approach, but I just want to understand all
of the details before I apply this.

And honestly, if this turns out to be the wrong direction we can
revert and try doing this another way.

Anyways, just FYI...