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: <20250416102015.GA5520@system.software.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:20:15 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: willy@...radead.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, almasrymina@...gle.com, kernel_team@...ynix.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, hawk@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] shrinking struct page (part of page pool) On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 04:30:02PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:52:07 +0900 Byungchul Park wrote: > > > Fortunately, many prerequisite works have been done by Mina but I guess > > > he or she has done it for other purpose than 'shrinking struct page'. > > > > > > I'd like to just finalize the work so that the fields above can be > > > removed from struct page. However, I need to resolve a curiousity > > > before starting. > > I don't understand what the question is but FWIW from my perspective > the ZC APIs are fairly contained, or at least we tried to make sure > that net_iov pages cannot reach random parts of the stack. > > Replacing all uses of struct page would require converting much more > of the stack, AFAIU. But that's best discussed over posted patches. Okay. Let's discuss it once posting patches. > > > Network guys already introduced a sperate strcut, struct net_iov, > > > to overlay the interesting fields. However, another separate struct > > > for system memory might be also needed e.g. struct bump so that > > > struct net_iov and struct bump can be overlayed depending on the > > > source: > > > > > > struct bump { > > > unsigned long _page_flags; > > > unsigned long bump_magic; > > > struct page_pool *bump_pp; > > > unsigned long _pp_mapping_pad; > > > unsigned long dma_addr; > > > atomic_long_t bump_ref_count; > > > unsigned int _page_type; > > > atomic_t _refcount; > > > }; > > > > > > To netwrok guys, any thoughts on it? > > > To Willy, do I understand correctly your direction? > > > > > > Plus, it's a quite another issue but I'm curious, that is, what do you > > > guys think about moving the bump allocator(= page pool) code from > > > network to mm? I'd like to start on the work once gathering opinion > > > from both Willy and network guys. > > I don't see any benefit from moving page pool to MM. It is quite > networking specific. But we can discuss this later. Moving code > is trivial, it should not be the initial focus. I think so. Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists