netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] sctp: use transport hashtable to replace association's with rhashtable

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:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:11:20 -0500
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, mleitner@...hat.com,
	vyasevic@...hat.com, daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] sctp: use transport hashtable to replace
 association's with rhashtable

On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 15:32 -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:19:39PM -0500, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 23:50 +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > 
> > > besides, this patchset will use transport hashtable to replace
> > > association hashtable to lookup with rhashtable api. get transport
> > > first then get association by t->asoc. and also it will make tcp
> > > style work better.
> > 
> > SCTP already has a hash table, why not simply changing the way items are
> > hashed into it ?
> 
> Because Vlad asked to split the patch so it gets easier to review. The
> direct change was quite big.
> 
> > Sure, storing thousands of sockets in a single hash bucket is not wise.
> > 
> > Switching SCTP to rhashtable at this moment is premature, it is still
> > moving fast.
> 
> Dave and Vlad had asked in the first review for considering using
> rhashtable (ok, Dave didn't mention it by name).  We did, and it seemed
> nice beside 1 issue Xin found, regarding multiple rehashing, which I'll
> highlight in a reply right away. 
> Said all this, I know this was your second email already against this
> usage, but I have to ask, sorry: still really against it?

Well, it seems that Dave is OK to fix all remaining bugs in rhashtable.

I was not aware that 'we' decided to force rhashtable all over the
places, because it looks so sexy and fun.

Let see how funny it will be then.


--
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