netdev - Re: [PATCH for 2.6.33] conntrack: restrict runtime hashsize modifications

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: <4B6BF111.60205@trash.net>
Date:	Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:21:05 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 2.6.33] conntrack: restrict runtime hashsize modifications

Jon Masters wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 11:03 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 18:04 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>>> How about alternatively moving nf_conntrack_hsize into the
>>>>> per-namespace struct? It doesn't look more complicated or
>>>>> intrusive and would allow to still change the init_net
>>>>> hashsize. Also seems less hackish :)
>>>> How about this (so far untested) patch? The htable_size is moved into
>>>> the per-namespace struct and initialized from the current (global)
>>>> value of nf_conntrack_htable_size. Changes through sysfs are still
>>>> permitted, but only affect the init namespace and newly created ones.
>>> I moved the random seed into the per-ns context aswell. I think that's
>>> better than having a global one, and you don't need to rehash all.
>> That's another possibility. But we don't loose anything by not
>> reseeding during resize. It also shouldn't be possible to determine
>> the seed from userspace in a namespace, so there's no real need
>> to use seperate values.
> 
> Right, the risk there is hypothetical at best. But there's little lost
> in putting it in per-ns and then you can rehash and truly make them
> independent, which I think is really what netns is all about.

I don't disagree, but currently I'm trying to go for a minimal
version thats suitable for 2.6.33.
--
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