netdev - Re: [RFC] net: skbuff: let struct skb

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: <20230215101356.3b86c451@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:13:56 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: skbuff: let struct skb_ext live inside the head

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:43:32 +0100 Florian Westphal wrote:
> I think the cleaner solution would be to move the new extension ids
> into sk_buff itself (at the end, uninitialized data unless used).
> 
> Those extensions would always reside there and not in the slab object.

Do you mean the entire extension? 8B of metadata + (possibly) 32B 
of the key?

> Obviously that only makes sense for extensions where we assume
> that typical workload will require them, which might be a hard call to
> make.

I'm guessing that's the reason why Google is okay with putting the key
in the skb - they know they will use it most of the time. But an
average RHEL user may appreciate the skb growth for an esoteric protocol
to a much smaller extent :(