netdev - Re: [Patch] Establishing more than 64K outgoing TCP connections

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: <20081107.115401.214017400.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:54:01 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	yavor@...plifymedia.com
Cc:	zbr@...emap.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Establishing more than 64K outgoing TCP connections

From: Yavor Goulishev <yavor@...plifymedia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:38:14 -0500

> It would change. Switching the bucket allows you to grow the table
> size and keep O(1).  Without changing the hash function, growing the
> table size will not help.  Currently all binds on the same port will
> go to the same bucket.

I hear a lot of talk about a "new hash function" but what in the world are you
going to hash on other than the port?

Listening sockets can bind to just a specific port, with source and
destination address set to "ANY" (ie. wildcard).

Therefore, if you use some idea like using saddr or daddr in the hash
function, then a listening socket bind will have to walk the entire table
to see if any socket exists already bound to that port.

You really lack some fundamental understanding of the code you are trying
to change, and the things that code must cater to.
--
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