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:   Sun, 5 May 2019 18:59:43 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 10:04:21AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <>
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:32:23 +0100
> > it appears that we might take freeing the socket itself to the
> > RCU-delayed part, along with socket->wq.  And doing that has
> > an interesting benefit - the only reason to do two separate
> > allocation disappears.
> I'm pretty sure we looked into RCU freeing the socket in the
> past but ended up not doing so.
> I think it had to do with the latency in releasing sock related
> objects.
> However, I might be confusing "struct socket" with "struct sock"

Erm...  the only object with changed release time is the memory
occupied by struct sock_alloc.  Currently:
final iput of socket
	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of socket->wq
	kfree() of socket
With this change:
final iput of socket
	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of coallocated socket and socket->wq

So it would have to be a workload where tons of sockets are created and
torn down, where RCU-delayed freeing of socket_wq is an inevitable evil,
but freeing struct socket_alloc itself must be done immediately, to
reduce the memory pressure.  Or am I misreading you?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists