netdev - Re: [RESEND] [NET] fib_rules: Flush route cache after rule modifications

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: <20070328.112417.08322226.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tgraf@...g.ch
Cc:	jarkao2@...pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org, muli@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [NET] fib_rules: Flush route cache after rule
 modifications

From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:49:03 +0200

> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> 2007-03-28 13:19
> > I hope I'm wrong, but isn't this at the cost of admins
> > working with long rules' sets, which (probably) take extra
> > time now?
> 
> That's right, it makes the insert and delete operation more
> expensive.
> 
> A compromise would be to delay the flushing and wait for
> some time (default 2 seconds) whether more rules or routes
> are being added before flushing.

Another idea Thomas and I tossed around was to have some kind of way
for the rule insertion to indicate that the flush should be deferred
and I kind of prefer that explicitness.

By default it's better the flush immediately, because the old
behavior is totally unexpected.  "I insert a rule and it dosn't
show up?", nobody expects that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html