netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] VSOCK: Fix VSOCK_HASH and VSOCK_CONN

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:	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Andy King <acking@...are.com>
To:	Asias He <asias@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>,
	Reilly Grant <grantr@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] VSOCK: Fix VSOCK_HASH and VSOCK_CONN_HASH

> If we mod with VSOCK_HASH_SIZE -1, we get 0, 1, .... 249.  Actually, we
> have vsock_bind_table[0 ... 250] and vsock_connected_table[0 .. 250].
> In this case the last entry will never be used.

If I remember correctly, we did this on purpose.  There's actually a
comment about it:

>   * VSOCK_HASH_SIZE + 1 so that vsock_bind_table[0] through
>   * vsock_bind_table[VSOCK_HASH_SIZE - 1] are for bound sockets and
>   * vsock_bind_table[VSOCK_HASH_SIZE] is for unbound sockets.  The hash

[250] is for unbound sockets.  If you hash on that, you'll mistakenly
get an unbound socket when looking for a bound one.

It is confusing, so perhaps a better way is just to move unbound into
its own table.

Thanks!
- Andy
--
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