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:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:35:57 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     Justin Iurman <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Attempt to improve options code parsing

On 8/3/21 6:06 PM, Justin Iurman wrote:
>>> As per Eric's comment on a previous patchset that was adding a new HopbyHop
>>> option, i.e. why should a new option appear before or after existing ones in the
>>> list, here is an attempt to suppress such competition. It also improves the
>>> efficiency and fasten the process of matching a Hbh or Dst option, which is
>>> probably something we want regarding the list of new options that could quickly
>>> grow in the future.
>>> Basically, the two "lists" of options (Hbh and Dst) are replaced by two arrays.
>>> Each array has a size of 256 (for each code point). Each code point points to a
>>> function to process its specific option.
>>> Thoughts?
>> Hi Justin
>> I think this still suffers from indirect call costs (CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y),
>> and eventually use more dcache.
> Agree with both. It was the compromise for such a solution, unfortunately.
>> Since we only deal with two sets/arrays, I would simply get rid of them
>> and inline the code using two switch() clauses.
> Indeed, this is the more efficient. However, we still have two "issues":
>  - ip6_parse_tlv will keep growing and code could look ugly at some point

Well, in 10 years there has not been a lot of growth.

>  - there is still a "competition" between options, i.e. "I want to be at the top of the list"

Why would that be ?

A switch() is compiled with no particular order by the compiler.

Code generation depends on case density, and will use bisection-like strategy.

> Anyway, your solution is better than the current one so it's probably the way to go right now.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists