[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:28:30 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...nel.sg>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Internet-Draft on Port Randomisation
Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com> writes:
> Eugene Teo wrote:
>> Has anyone read this Internet-Draft?
>> http://www.gont.com.ar/drafts/port-randomization/draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-02.txt
>>
>> In this memo, there are descriptions of four different ephemeral port
>> randomisation algorithms (see page 17).
>>
>> Algo #1 and #2 are simple port randomisation algorithms. Algo #3 is
>> what we have in Linux. The memo suggested algorithm #4, double-hash
>> randomisation algorithm, which is an improvement to algo #3 (see page
>> 15).
>>
>> Does anyone have any thought about the improved algorithm? Is this
>> worth implementing,
> No the added lock overhead of a global next free port array is not
> worth it.
[haven't read the draft] But you don't necessarily need a full global
lock for such a scheme. What works too is to access global state only
ever N accesses and pre-allocate a small range per CPU. While there's
still some global overhead then, it happens significantly less. My old
alternative ipid setup algorithm worked this way.
One drawback of such a scheme today: on RT kernels the per CPU state
tends to be become a problem.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists