netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 15/16] openvswitch: use new hashtable implementation

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:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:22:09 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
	agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de,
	ccaulfie@...hat.com, teigland@...hat.com,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, bfields@...ldses.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
	venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
	snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/16] openvswitch: use new hashtable implementation

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> This is just one example in an attempt to show why different hash table
> users may have different constraints: for a hash table entirely
> populated by keys generated internally by the kernel, a random seed
> might not be required, but for cases where values are fed by user-space
> and from the NIC, I would argue that flexibility to implement a
> randomizable hash function beats implementation simplicity any time.
> 
> And you could keep the basic use-case simple by providing hints to the
> hash_32()/hash_64()/hash_ulong() helpers in comments.

If all you need is throwing in a salt value to avoid attacks, can't
you just do that from caller side?  Scrambling the key before feeding
it into hash_*() should work, no?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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