netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sk_buff: drop all skb extensions on free and skb scrubbing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7ba415ed-5332-b01e-8c2e-8e4e65e2d520@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:15:09 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
        paulb@...lanox.com, vladbu@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sk_buff: drop all skb extensions on free and skb
 scrubbing



On 9/26/19 11:06 AM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>> +static inline void skb_ext_reset(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (skb->active_extensions) {
>>
>> This deserves an unlikely(skb->active_extensions) hint here ?
> 
> unlikely() isn't used in the other helpers (e.g. skb_ext_{put,del,copy}
> either, should I add it there too?
> 

At least in GRO paths unlikely() makes sense.

For other paths it might not be the case.