netdev - Re: [net PATCH 0/2] IPv4 FIB suffix length fixes

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, 05 Dec 2016 13:16:19 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, rshearma@...cade.com
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 0/2] IPv4 FIB suffix length fixes

From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 07:27:47 -0500

> In reviewing the patch from Robert Shearman and looking over the code I
> realized there were a few different bugs we were still carrying in the IPv4
> FIB lookup code.
> 
> These two patches are based off of Robert's original patch, but take things
> one step further by splitting them up to address two additional issues I
> found.
> 
> So first have Robert's original patch which was addressing the fact that
> us calling update_suffix in resize is expensive when it is called per add.
> To address that I incorporated the core bit of the patch which was us
> dropping the update_suffix call from resize.
> 
> The first patch in the series does a rename and fix on the push_suffix and
> pull_suffix code.  Specifically we drop the need to pass a leaf and
> secondly we fix things so we pull the suffix as long as the value of the
> suffix in the node is dropping.
> 
> The second patch addresses the original issue reported as well as
> optimizing the code for the fact that update_suffix is only really meant to
> go through and clean things up when we are decreasing a suffix.  I had
> originally added code for it to somehow cause an increase, but if we push
> the suffix when a new leaf is added we only ever have to handle pulling
> down the suffix with update_suffix so I updated the code to reflect that.
> 
> As far as side effects the only ones I think that will be obvious should be
> the fact that some routes may be able to be found earlier since before we
> relied on resize to update the suffix lengths, and now we are updating them
> before we add or remove the leaf.

Series applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Alex.