netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf

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:	Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:05:32 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:57:15 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:

> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:55:38 +0100
> > Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> >>> Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> >>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ struct ip_ct_tcp_state {
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  struct ip_ct_tcp
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>> +    spinlock_t    lock;
> >>>>>      struct ip_ct_tcp_state seen[2];    /* connection parameters per
> >>>>> direction */
> >>>>>      u_int8_t    state;        /* state of the connection (enum
> >>>>> tcp_conntrack) */
> >>>>>      /* For detecting stale connections */
> >>>> Eric already posted a patch to use an array of locks, which is
> >>>> a better approach IMO since it keeps the size of the conntrack
> >>>> entries down.
> >>> Yes, we probably can use an array for short lived lock sections.
> > 
> > I am not a fan of the array of locks. Sizing it is awkward and
> > it is vulnerable to hash collisions. Let's see if there is another
> > better way.
> 
> On normal machines, (no debugging spinlocks), patch uses an embedded
> spinlock. We probably can use this even on 32bit kernels, considering
> previous patch removed the rcu_head (8 bytes on 32bit arches) from
> nf_conn :)
> 
> if LOCKDEP is on, size of a spinlock is 64 bytes on x86_64.
> Adding a spinlock on each nf_conn would be too expensive. In this
> case, an array of spinlock is a good compromise, as done in
> IP route cache, tcp ehash, ...
> 
> I agree sizing of this hash table is not pretty, and should be
> a generic kernel service (I wanted such service for futexes for example)
> 

IMO having different locking based on lockdep and architecture is an invitation
to future obscure problems. Perhaps some other locking method or shrinking
ct entry would be better.
--
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