[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080118203655.3b6fbfc9@deepthought>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:36:55 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:34:46 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > The perturbation timer used for re-keying can be deferred, it doesn't
> > need to be deterministic.
>
> The only concern that I can come up with is that the sfq_perturbation
> timer might be on one CPU, and all the operations using the corresponding
> SFQ on another. This could in theory allow a nearly omniscient attacker
> to exploit an SFQ imbalance while preventing perturbation of the hash
> function.
>
> This does not seem to be a valid concern at this point, since there are
> very few uses of init_timer_deferrable(). And if it should become a
> problem, one approach would be to have some sort of per-timer limit to
> the deferral. Of course, at that point one would need to figure out
> what this limit should be!
>
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
But the only threat is getting more bandwidth for a longer interval.
It is all kind of moot anyway because the bandwidth hogs all open
multiple connections anyway, so SFQ is of no use.
--
Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>
--
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