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  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:	Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:17:25 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] flow_dissector: Add hash_extra field to
 flow_keys struct

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>> > I've been toying around with reducing skb->cb[] to 44 bytes,
>> > Seems Tom could integrate following patch from my test branch:
>> >
>> > http://git.breakpoint.cc/cgit/fw/net-next.git/commit/?h=skb_cb_44_01&id=29d711e1a71244b71940c2d1e346500bef4d6670
>> >
>> > It makes sfq use a smaller flow key state.
>>
>> Alternatively, I think we might be able to eliminate the use of
>> flow_keys and flow_dissect from the qdisc code altogether. It looks
>> like this is only being used to determine a hash over the addresses,
>> ports, and protocol so I am thinking that we can just call
>> skb_get_hash for that. Will try to post some patches soon.
>
> The problem with this is that you'll lose the secret input to jhash
> in sfq_hash().
>
> assuming you have packets p1 and p2 (from different flows)
> with skb_get_hash(p1) == skb_get_hash(p2) those flows share same
> queue/bin forever as the hash pertubation will no longer work.
>
We still need hash perturbation for the mapping to a small number of
queues which can be done after retrieving skb_get_hash, but the
probability that two different flows match perfectly in skb_get_hash()
should be 1/2^32-- so are hash collisions really a concern here? Note
that we already lose information in the IPv6 address fold in
flow_dissect and don't include VLAN or VNID yet in the flow_keys yet,
so these probably already make a greater probability in a tuple
collision for sfc hash.

> For sfq, hash collisions may exist as well but they'll be resolved
> after some time when q->perturbation (its part of hash input) is reseeded.
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists