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:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:36:24 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <>
To:     Harald Welte <>
        Gabriel Ganne <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] gtp: add notification mechanism

Le 26/08/2020 à 20:52, Harald Welte a écrit :
> 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.
I don't think that this is a significant overhead. This is added in the control
path. When a PDP context is added, the rtnl lock is took, this is another
magnitude of overhead than a kmalloc().

> Wouldn't it make sense to only allocate + fill those messages if we
> actually knew a subscriber existed?
In fact, this is actually how the netlink framework works.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists