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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANn89iJs8u9HK2AYGcdxny8oC3jWGP6H-fNhm81Xcy19dUn9SA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:01:46 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: call prot->release_cb() when processing backlog On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:59 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 17:05 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > __sk_flush_backlog() / sk_flush_backlog() are used > > when TCP recvmsg()/sendmsg() process large chunks, > > to not let packets in the backlog too long. > > > > It makes sense to call tcp_release_cb() to also > > process actions held in sk->sk_tsq_flags for smoother > > scheduling. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> > > --- > > net/core/sock.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c > > index 21610e3845a5042f7c648ccb3e0d90126df20a0b..bb89b88bc1e8a042c4ee40b3c8345dc58cb1b369 100644 > > --- a/net/core/sock.c > > +++ b/net/core/sock.c > > @@ -3001,6 +3001,9 @@ void __sk_flush_backlog(struct sock *sk) > > { > > spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock); > > __release_sock(sk); > > + > > + if (sk->sk_prot->release_cb) > > + sk->sk_prot->release_cb(sk); > > Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if adding an > indirect_call_wrapper here could make any difference? > > I guess not much, and in any case it could be a follow-up. > I think it would make sense, particularly from release_sock() We have such a change in our kernel, for some reason its author never upstreamed it :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists