netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] ipv6: use stronger hash for reassembly queue hash table

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: <1362754386.15793.226.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:53:06 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipv6: use stronger hash for reassembly queue hash
 table

On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 14:04 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> Ok if I send a patch later to revert this change? What do you think about
> increasing the size of the fragmentation queue hash table INETFRAGS_HASHSZ,
> too?

Thats because reassembly hash was so small, and number of in flight
reassembly is so small anyway, that I felt not worth having so many
instructions to compute a hash that is truncated to 6 bits

In real life I always advocate _not_ using fragments, I dont know why so
many people try to used them.

No matter how you hash, a hacker can easily fill your defrag unit with
not complete datagrams, so what's the point ?



--
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