netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 12/13] genetlink: allow families to use split ops directly

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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:37:41 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, razor@...ckwall.org,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, gnault@...hat.com,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com, fw@...len.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/13] genetlink: allow families to use split
 ops directly

On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 12:25 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:15:05 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > full ops. Each split op is 40B while full op is 48B.
> > > Devlink for example has 54 dos and 19 dumps, 2 of the dumps
> > > do not have a do -> 56 full commands = 2688B.
> > > Split ops would have taken 2920B, so 9% more space while
> > > allowing individual per/post doit and per-type policies.  
> > 
> > You mean "Full ops would have [...] while split ops allow individual
> > [...]" or so?
> 
> Split ops end up being larger as we need a separate entry for each 
> do and dump. So I think it's right?
> 

Indeed.

Oh, I see now, you were basically saying "it's only 9% bigger for all
that extra flexibility" ... didn't read that right before.

johannes