netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly increment bsockets and num

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:20 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@...oo.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly
	increment bsockets and num_owners

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 29 novembre 2010 ?? 13:12 +0000, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> 
> > Evgeniy & Eric,

Eric & Evgeniy ;-)

> > But it's compared to the numer of available port numbers in
> > inet_csk_get_port():
> > 
> >      "if (atomic_read(&hashinfo->bsockets) > (high - low) + 1)"
> > 
> > Can't you have bsockets higher than this with only one port used?
> > 
> 
> Because we store tuples, not only port information.
> 
> You can have many sockets bound on a single port.
> 
> This 'optimization' was only meaningful on a machine you make only
> active connections, if you ask me...

That's what I've missed...

> Problem is, as soon as some passive connections are done, bsockets count
> becomes wrong. The patch fixes this, thats all.

Sure, the numbers are correct now. I wondered about this optimization
only.

Thanks for explanations,
Jarek P.
--
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