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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:11:19 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] inetpeer: Support ipv6 addresses. Le lundi 29 novembre 2010 à 21:53 -0800, David Miller a écrit : > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:42:16 +0100 > > > Its a bit early in the morning here, I must confess I dont yet > > understand your patch David :) > > > > As we use a tree, why not using two different trees for ipv4 / ipv6 ? > > The "key" just creates a natural ordering in the tree, it's > almost arbitrary except that it must distribute well amongst > the entries. Hmm. AVL search must take a decision, take the left or the right path. if current key is equal, which path do you take ? @@ -165,9 +208,9 @@ static void unlink_from_unused(struct inet_peer *p) > for (u = rcu_dereference_protected(peers.root, \ > lockdep_is_held(&peers.lock)); \ > u != peer_avl_empty; ) { \ > - if (_daddr == u->v4daddr) \ > + if (inet_peer_addr_equal(_daddr, &u->daddr)) \ > break; \ > - if ((__force __u32)_daddr < (__force __u32)u->v4daddr) \ > + if (key < inet_peer_key(&u->daddr)) \ > v = &u->avl_left; \ > else \ > v = &u->avl_right; \ Apparently you take the right one, you may miss the target if its on the left path ? > > I currently don't see any reason to make two trees right now. > Cost of a tree is one pointer, and ipv4 search would be faster if we use different search functions. > > I dont understand how computing a 32bit key (sort of hash key) is going > > to help when hash collision happens, with an avl tree. > > Either version of tree (AVL/rbtree) will be expensive to use if depth is > > big (With 2 millions entries, depth is going to be very big). I > > understand you want to get rid of route cache ? > > Do we plan to talk to 2 million unique destinations and have active > non-default metrics for each one of them very often? > > inet_peer entries will only get created when we need to make > non-default metric settings for a specific destination address. > > See that's the thing, it's scope is so much smaller than the existing > routing cache. It's only going to be used in limited if not > controlled cases. > OK good :) I have no idea how many addresses have non default metric settings. Do you know how to make an estimation on a server ? -- 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