netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v7 2/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1b: generate Responder Cookie secret

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: <87eins53fu.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:47:17 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	william.allen.simpson@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v7 2/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1b: generate Responder Cookie secret

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

> From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:23:21 -0500
>
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tcp_secret_locker);
>
> So connection creation scalability will be limited now because
> we'll always have to go through this centralized spinlock even
> for independent listening sockets, right?

I was about to complain about the same thing in a earlier version
of this patch kit, but then I noticed the spin lock aquiring 
is guarded by

if (unlikely(time_after_eq(jiffy, tcp_secret_generating->expires))) {

which presumably makes it rare enough?

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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