netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:25:10 +0800
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:51 PM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:57:45PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> >
> > Keep the accounting schema consistent across different protocols
> > with __sk_mem_schedule(). Besides, it adjusts a little bit on how
> > to calculate forward allocated memory compared to before. After
> > applied this patch, we could avoid receive path scheduling extra
> > amount of memory.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230221110344.82818-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > ---
> > V2:
> > 1) change the title and body message
> > 2) use __sk_mem_schedule() instead suggested by Paolo Abeni
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/udp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > index 9592fe3e444a..21c99087110d 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > @@ -1531,10 +1531,23 @@ static void busylock_release(spinlock_t *busy)
> >               spin_unlock(busy);
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)
>

> nit: I think it's best to drop the inline keyword and
>      let the compiler figure that out.

Thanks for the review. I'll do that in the v3 patch.

Jason