netdev - Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:04:47 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash_dst()

Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 10:37 PM:
> 
>> Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
>>> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 12:09 PM:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Instead of returning hash % ht->cfg.size (implying a divide)
>>>> +	 * we return the high 32 bits of the (hash * ht->cfg.size) that will
>>>> +	 * give results between [0 and cfg.size-1] and same hash distribution,
>>>> +	 * but using a multiply, less expensive than a divide
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	return ((u64)hash * ht->cfg.size) >> 32;
>>> Are we sure of the same hash distribution? Probably I miss something,
>>> but: if this 'hash' is well distributed on 32 bits, and ht->cfg.size
>>> is smaller than 32 bits, e.g. 256 (8 bits), then this multiplication
>>> moves to the higher 32 of u64 only max. 8 bits of the most significant
>>> byte, and the other three bytes are never used, while division is
>>> always affected by all four bytes...
>> Not sure what you are saying... but if size=256, then, yes, we want a final 
>> result between 0 and 255, so three bytes are nul.
> 
> Eric, it would be nice to acknowledge David's suggestion that this hash
> size is always power of two here, because otherwise at least your words
> about the same hash distribution according to the "%" variant could be
> wrong (but I don't say the final result would be wrong). Maybe I mix
> up these sizes, but it seems this could be set by a user, and I didn't
> find anything about this power of two necessity?
> 

size is not a power of two here.

I prefer to let admins chose their size, since it makes attacker life more 
difficult :)

For example, I can tell you I have a server, were size is between 2.000.000 
and 3.500.000, I dont want to be forced to use 2097152

A multiply is cheap, at least on current hardware.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html