netdev - Re[2]: [PATCH 0/5] netfilter updates for net-next (upcoming 3.5), batch 2

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

Message-ID: <p9l17hj.bb22250845107efca259c380861808ee@obelix.schillstrom.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 06:00:00 +0200 (CEST)
From:	"Hans Schillstrom" <hans@...illstrom.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	pablo@...filter.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re[2]:  [PATCH 0/5] netfilter updates for net-next (upcoming 
	3.5), batch 2


>
>From: pablo@...filter.org
>Date: Wed,  9 May 2012 13:33:03 +0200
>
>> This is a second batch of netfilter updates for net-next, they contain:
>> 
>> * The new HMARK target from Hans Schillstrom. It took lots of spins
>>   to get this into shape. This target provides a hash-based packet / flow
>>   pre-classifier for iptables that can be used to distribute packets
>>   / flows between uplinks and backend servers. It provides to modes, one
>>   that relies on conntrack, and one that is stateless per-packet.
>> 
>> * Byte-based cost calculation for the hashlimit match, to detect when
>>   a host consumes more bandwidth than expected. This patch from Florian
>>   Westphal.
>> 
>> You can pull these changes from:
>> 
>> git://1984.lsi.us.es/net-next
>
>Pulled.
>
>Two suggested improvements:
>
>1) The HMARK hash is quite expensive, because it uses a modulus.
>
>   Consider adjusting it to use the usual trick:
>
>	((u64)(HASH_VAL * HASH_SIZE)) >> 32
>
>   so that this can be a multiply instead of a modulus.

That's true 

>2) XT_HASHLIMIT_MAX is cumbersome.
>
>   The canonical way to validate if the set bits are in	a
>   valid range is to have a "_ALL" macro, and test:
>
>	if (val & ~XT_HASHLIMIT_ALL)
>		goto err;
>
>   or similar.
>

Thanks David  
I'll fix it

Regards 
Hans Schillstrom


--
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