netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] rps: consistent rxhash

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: <1271769404.7895.10.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:16:44 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Franco Fichtner <franco@...tsummer.de>
Cc:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, therbert@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] rps: consistent rxhash

Le mardi 20 avril 2010 à 14:48 +0200, Franco Fichtner a écrit :

> 
> I thought about this for some time...
> 
> Do we really need the port numbers here at all? A simple
> addr1^addr2 can provide a good enough pointer for
> distribution amongst CPUs.
> 
> The real connection tracking is better done locally at the
> corresponding CPU. That way a potential cache miss can be
> avoided and the still needed hash calculation for
> connection tracking will be offloaded.
> 

Yes, doing the port test/swap is useful in the loopback case 
(addr1 == addr2).

This is probably a bit convoluted, but David (and me) found this
funny ;)


--
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