linux-kernel - 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1459329252.2055.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:14:12 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Subject: Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 09:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Looks like rhashtable has too much policy in it to properly deal with
> cases where there are too many hash collisions, so I am going to work
> on reverting it's use in mac80211.

I'm not really all that happy with that approach - can't we fix the
rhashtable? It's a pretty rare corner case that many keys really are
identical and no kind of hash algorithm, but it seems much better to
still deal with it than to remove the rhashtable usage and go back to
hand-rolling something.

johannes