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
| ||
|
Date: 31 Dec 2010 20:03:49 -0500 From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com> To: linux@...izon.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: still nfs problems [Was: Linux 2.6.37-rc8] > ...and your point would be that an exponentially increasing addition to > the existing number of tests is an acceptable tradeoff in a situation > where the >99.999999999999999% case is that of sane servers with no > looping? I don't think so... 1) Look again; it's O(1) work per entry, or O(n) work for an n-entry directory. And O(1) space. With very small constant factors, and very little code. The only thing exponentially increasing is the interval at which you save the current cookie for future comparison. 2) You said it *was* a problem, so it seemed worth presenting a practical solution. If you don't think it's worth it, I'm not going to disagree. But it's not impossible, or even difficult. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists