[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pskb change in dst->output

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pskb change in dst->output
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:43:10 +1000
Cc: jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040709142144.483369ec.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040709081443.GA11101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Xine.LNX.4.44.0407091001460.3887-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040709123608.1f9f9265.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040709204228.GA3015@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040709142144.483369ec.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:21:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > When TCP retransmits the packet, it will do a pskb_copy() on it so
> > it's no longer a clone.
> Not necessarily true.  If the device has finished transmission,
> which is true %99.9999 of the time when a retransmission happens,
> another clone will be made against the original SKB sitting in
> the write queue.

You're right.  But that case is identical to the clone during the
initial transmission.

> The hw checksumming state is what we care about.  And skb_cow()'s 
> implementation
> is:
> 1) Always copy all data if cloned
> 2) Allocate a unique data area, and even the shared private skb
>    area becomes local to the skb.
> In short only the data is uncloned.
> However, skb_checksum_help() is doing something entirely different.
> It makes a fully new skb, both data and sk_buff struct are uncloned.

I completely agree with these facts.

> This is particularly important for the very case which ah_output()
> cares about, for example.  If the skb is CHECKSUM_HW we have to unclone
> the full SKB.  ah_output() does not use things like skb_cow() like
> ESP and others do.
> I really think the dst->output() SKB pointer passing is truly needed.

That's where we disagree.  The very first thing ah_output() does after
the *conditional* skb_checksum_help() call is skb_push().  This cannot
be done on a shared skb.  Therefore the skb must be totally private
or at most cloned.

This is the fundamental reason why there is no need to make a completely
new skb because we already have (or assume to have) exlucsive access
to the fields in the sk_buff struct.

Now whether we need to unclone the data or not is a different question.
My opinion is that we don't, but I'm not to fussed over that.

> You still won't be convinced, I know :-)  So propose a patch and we'll
> shoot holes in it so we can discuss something concrete, ok? :)))

OK, that's what I'll do once I finish working on the IPv4 IPsec
encapsulation stuff.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>