netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] fib_hash: improve route deletion scaling on interface drop with lots of interfaces

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20091027.180104.135164582.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bcrl@...et.ca
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fib_hash: improve route deletion scaling on
 interface drop with lots of interfaces

From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:24:26 -0400

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:17:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> > bottleneck.  Next up in the network code is rt_cache_flush().  Comments?
>> 
>> On a real router adding and removing routes is happening a lot
>> whereas interface changes are rare.  You're making a more common
>> operation more expensive for the sake of a less common one.
> 
> It's not a question of more common vs less common, but if the system can 
> recover from an adverse event within a reasonable amount of time.  Tunnel 
> flaps occur in the real world, and this results in the change of state of 
> a large number of interfaces at the same time.  Would it be okay if this 
> is wrapped in a config option?  I agree that the extra overhead is not 
> for everyone.

Having it in a config option is worse, distributions are going
to turn it on so it would be protecting nothing for %99.999 of
folks out there.
--
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