[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <467D8056.1000307@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:19:34 +0200
From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@....net>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFD] L2 Network namespace infrastructure
On 23.06.2007 19:19, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> writes:
>
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>>> Depending upon the data structure it will either be modified to hold
>>> a per entry network namespace pointer or it there will be a separate
>>> copy per network namespace. For large global data structures like
>>> the ipv4 routing cache hash table adding an additional pointer to the
>>> entries appears the more reasonable solution.
>>
>> So the routing cache is shared between all namespaces?
>
> Yes. Each namespaces has it's own view so semantically it's not
> shared. But the initial fan out of the hash table 2M or something
> isn't something we want to replicate on a per namespace basis even
> assuming the huge page allocations could happen.
>
> So we just tag the entries and add the network namespace as one more
> part of the key when doing hash table look ups.
Can one namespace DoS other namespaces' access to the routing cache?
Two scenarios come to mind:
* provoking hash collisions
* lock contention (sorry, haven't checked whether/how we do locking)
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists