netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Generic zcopy

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: <20210105041707.m574sk4ivjsxvtxi@bsd-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:17:07 -0800
From:   Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] Generic zcopy_* functions

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:39:35PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 2:12 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
> >
> > This is set of cleanup patches for zerocopy which are intended
> > to allow a introduction of a different zerocopy implementation.
> >
> > The top level API will use the skb_zcopy_*() functions, while
> > the current TCP specific zerocopy ends up using msg_zerocopy_*()
> > calls.
> >
> > There should be no functional changes from these patches.
> >
> > v2->v3:
> >  Rename zc_flags to 'flags'.  Use SKBFL_xxx naming, similar
> >  to the SKBTX_xx naming.  Leave zerocopy_success naming alone.
> >  Reorder patches.
> >
> > v1->v2:
> >  Break changes to skb_zcopy_put into 3 patches, in order to
> >  make it easier to follow the changes.  Add Willem's suggestion
> >  about renaming sock_zerocopy_
> 
> Overall, this latest version looks fine to me.
> 
> The big question is how this fits in with the broader rx direct
> placement feature. But it makes sense to me to checkpoint as is at
> this point.
> 
> One small comment: skb_zcopy_* is a logical prefix for functions that
> act on sk_buffs, Such as skb_zcopy_set, which associates a uarg with
> an skb. Less for functions that operate directly on the uarg, and do
> not even take an skb as argument: skb_zcopy_get and skb_zcopy_put.
> Perhaps net_zcopy_get/net_zcopy_put?

Or even just zcopy_get / zcopy_put ?
-- 
Jonathan