netdev - Re: IPv6 routing table max_size badly dimensioned compared to IPv4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:47:55 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	hannes@...essinduktion.org, bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 routing table max_size badly dimensioned compared to IPv4

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:02:00 -0800

> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 21:50 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 
>> We store those routes back into the routing table, so we must have a way to
>> count them and trigger gc at some point.
> 
> Right, and current implementation will not scale.
> 
> If we need to perform 10000 inserts per second, and gc timeout is 60
> seconds, tree contains 600.000 entries, gc takes forever...

The only long term solution is to align ipv6 to be more like ipv4.

What's interesting is that if you look at the code, the original
author clearly intended to make callers be able to use route's
from the tree as-is without cloning.
--
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