netdev - Re: [RFC NET 00/02]: Secondary unicast address support

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: <467BB440.3010700@trash.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:36:32 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re: [RFC NET 00/02]: Secondary unicast address support

Ben Greear wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> For the macvlan hash you just use an upper byte.  Is that just a
>>> simple starting place, or do we not need a more complex hash.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> That gave me an idea, since the default addresses are random
>> anyway I'm now using an incrementing counter for the upper byte.
> 
> 
> Is there not a (relatively) easy way to hash the entire 6 bytes?
> 
> I'd prefer to be able to set the MACs to anything I want, without
> worrying about trivially hitting a worst-case hash scenario.


That would only happen if all your addresses have the same high
byte. I can't see a reason why you would want to do this, even
with manually configured addresses its still reasonable to
expect a uniform distribution.


-
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