netdev - Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 02 Apr 2016 20:33:34 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:46 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 11:34:10PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I was thinking about that one - it's not obvious to me from the
> > code
> > how this "explicitly checking for dups" would be done or let's say
> > how
> > rhashtable differentiates. But since it seems to work for Ben until
> > hitting a certain number of identical keys, surely that's just me
> > not
> > understanding the code rather than anything else :)
> It's really simple, rhashtable_insert_fast does not check for dups
> while rhashtable_lookup_insert_* do.

Oh, ok, thanks :)

johannes