2024-11-11, 00:32:51 +0200, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:

On 29.10.2024 12:47, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

quoted

+static void ovpn_encrypt_post(struct sk_buff *skb, int ret)
+{
+	struct ovpn_peer *peer = ovpn_skb_cb(skb)->peer;
+
+	if (unlikely(ret < 0))
+		goto err;
+
+	skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);
+
+	switch (peer->sock->sock->sk->sk_protocol) {
+	case IPPROTO_UDP:
+		ovpn_udp_send_skb(peer->ovpn, peer, skb);
+		break;
+	default:
+		/* no transport configured yet */
+		goto err;
+	}

Did you consider calling protocol specific sending function indirectly?
E.g.:

        peer->sock->send(peer, skb);

In a case where
 - only 2 implementations exist
 - no other implementation is likely to be added in the future
 - both implementations are part of the same module

I don't think indirect calls are beneficial (especially after the
meltdown/etc mitigations, see for example 4f24ed77dec9 ("udp: use
indirect call wrappers for GRO socket lookup"), 0e219ae48c3b ("net:
use indirect calls helpers for L3 handler hooks"), and many others
similar patches).


[...]

quoted

+	ovpn_send(ovpn, skb_list.next, NULL);
+
+	return NETDEV_TX_OK;
+
+drop:
  	skb_tx_error(skb);
-	kfree_skb(skb);
+	kfree_skb_list(skb);
  	return NET_XMIT_DROP;
  }

diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
index d9788a0cc99b5839c466c35d1b2266cc6b95fb72..aff3e9e99b7d2dd2fa68484d9a396d43f75a6d0b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c

[very long chunk of Antonio's patch quoted without comments]

Please trim your replies to only the necessary context.

-- 
Sabrina