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  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:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:52:02 +0200
From:   Harald Welte <>
To:     Nicolas Dichtel <>
        Gabriel Ganne <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] gtp: add notification mechanism

Hi Nicolas,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:47:54AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > Sending (unsolicited) notifications about all of those seems quite heavyweight to me.
> There is no 'unsolicited' notifications with this patch. Notifications are sent
> only if a userspace application has subscribed to the gtp mcast group.
> ip routes or conntrack entries are notified in the same way and there could a
> lot of them also (more than 100k conntrack entries for example).

Ok, thanks for reminding me of that.  However, even if those events are
not sent/multicasted, it still looks like the proposed patch is
unconditionally allocating a netlink message and filling it with
information about the PDP.  That alone looks like adding significant
overhead to every user - even the majority of current use cases where
nobody is listening/subscribing to that multicast group.

Wouldn't it make sense to only allocate + fill those messages if we
actually knew a subscriber existed?

- Harald Welte <> 
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists