netdev - Re: rhashtable: Add cap on number of elements in hash table

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, 18 May 2015 16:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	tgraf@...g.ch, johannes.berg@...el.com
Subject: Re: rhashtable: Add cap on number of elements in hash table

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:38:29 +0800

> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 06:09:46PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> Obviously something like 50 or 100 is too much.
>> 
>> Perhaps something between 5 and 10.
> 
> You are even more parsimonious than I :) Because the maximum chain
> length grows at a rate of logN * loglogN, I had chosen the number
> 16 which should be sufficient even if you had a 2^32 table (which
> you currently can't as we max out somewhere below that).
> 
> FWIW Thomas did some numbers on this and apparent 10 gets breached
> in a 2^24 table at 100% utilisation.

Ok, this of course depends upon the distribution of the input data
and the strength/suitability of the hash function.

I'm a little bit disappointed in what Thomas found.  I would expect
the distribution to be at least a little bit 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