netdev - Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing

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: <20100427.095108.68126984.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bmb@...enacr.com
Cc:	therbert@...gle.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rick.jones2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing

From: Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:37:11 -0400

> David Miller wrote:
>> How damn hard is it to add two 16-bit ports to the hash regardless of
>> protocol?
>>   
> Come to think of it, for UDP the hash must ignore
> the srcport and srcaddr, because a single bound
> socket is going to wildcard both those fields.

For load distribution we don't care if the local socket is wildcard
bounded on source.

It's going to be fully specified in the packet, and that's enough.

Sure, for full RFS some amends might be necessary in this area, but
for RPS and adapter based hw steering, using all of the ports is
entirely sufficient.
--
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