netdev - Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

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, 9 Mar 2016 20:53:07 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, solar@...nwall.com, vvs@...tuozzo.com,
	avagin@...tuozzo.com, xemul@...tuozzo.com, vdavydov@...tuozzo.com,
	khorenko@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 12:24:00PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
...
> We asked you for numbers without a lot of features enabled, it'll
> help us diagnose which subsystem still causes a lot of overhead
> much more clearly.
> 
> So please do so.

Sure. Gimme some time and I'll back with numbers.

> Although it's already pretty clear that netfilter conntrack
> cleanup is insanely expensive.

Yes. I can drop it off for a while and run tests without it,
then turn it back and try again. Would you like to see such
numbers?

> You're also jumping to a lot of conclusions, work with us to fix the
> fundamental performance problems rather than continually insisting on
> a limit.
> 
> We should be able to remove millions of IP addresses in less than
> half a second, no problem.  Limits make no sense at all.

Sure, I'll continue experimenting (and turn off preemt as
a first step). Sorry if I sounded rough.

	Cyrill