netdev - Re: [PATCH] netdev: fold name hash properly (v3)

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: <4AF9A4C7.4010703@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:37:11 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netdev: fold name hash properly (v3)

Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> The full_name_hash function does not produce well distributed values in
> the lower bits, so most code uses hash_32() to fold it.  This is really
> a bug introduced when name hashing was added, back in 2.5 when I added
> name hashing.
> 
> hash_32 is all that is needed since full_name_hash returns unsigned int
> which is only 32 bits on 64 bit platforms.
> 
> Also, there is no point in using hash_32 on ifindex, because the is naturally
> sequential and usually well distributed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> 

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>

Thanks Stephen

--
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