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]

Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:03:17 +0200
From:	Franco Fichtner <franco@...tsummer.de>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
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

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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 ;)
> 
> 

It is funny, but I fail to see the big picture of the
firewall / conntrack application here. It looks like
this is needed for local netperf tests to impress, but
it's a quite special use case, isn't it?
--
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