netdev - Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.

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: <20090130163600.0be8c137@extreme>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:36:00 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, berrange@...hat.com,
	et-mgmt-tools@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:51:14 +0300
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:30:22PM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@...mosbay.com) wrote:
> > > It should contain rough number of sockets, there is no need to be very
> > > precise because of this hueristic.
> > 
> > Denying there is a bug is... well... I dont know what to say.
> > 
> > I wonder why we still use atomic_t all over the kernel.
> 
> It is not a bug. It is not supposed to be precise. At all.
> I implemented a simple heuristic on when diferent bind port selection
> algorithm should start: roughly when number of opened sockets equals to
> some predefined value (sysctl at the moment, but it could be 64k or
> anything else), so if that number is loosely maintained and does not
> precisely corresponds to the number of sockets, it is not a problem.
> 
> You also saw 'again' lavel which has magic 5 number - it is another
> heuristic - since lock is dropped atfer the bind bucket check, and we
> selected it, it is possible that non-reuse socket will be added into the
> bucket, so we will have to rerun the process again. I limited this to
> the 5 attempts only, since it is better than what we have right now (I
> never saw more than 2 attempts needed in the tests), when number of
> bound sockets does not exceed 64k.
> 
>

How is any of this supposed to fix the bug?
--
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