On 01/18/2016 04:34 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: >> My understanding is that the sock_kmalloc is mainly used for allocations >> > of the user provided data, because it keeps tracks of how much memory >> > is allocated by a socket, and makes sure that is will not exceed the >> > sysctl_optmem_max limit. Usually the internal structures, with fixed >> > size are allocated simply with kmalloc. I don't think that using >> > sock_kmalloc will give us any benefit here. > If there is only ever one of them per-socket then kmalloc is fine, > otherwise you should use sock_kmalloc. There is one per request. There can be a few of them at a given time. We have the same thing in skcipher and we use kmalloc there. > >> I agree that they are very similar, but I found it much easier to debug >> > when they are separate functions. I would prefer to keep them separate. >> > They are also separate in algif_skcipher. It makes it also easier to >> > read and understand. > I too would prefer a common function. However we can do this > later if we wish. > lets do this later then. > >> > The inflight ctr is incremented only if an asynchronous request has been >> > successfully en-queued for processing. If a user forges to call recvmsg >> > then the function that increments it won't be even called. >> > >From the other hand we don't want to give the option to interrupt the >> > wait, because in a case, when we do have request being processed by some >> > hardware, and the user kills the process, causing the socket to be >> > freed, then we will get an Oops in the callback. > This should be replaced with a sock_hold. Ok, I will try sock_hold. Thanks, -- TS -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
