netdev - ipv4: add hash-based multipath routing

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150412205430.6d7fcd30@tyr>
Date:	Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:54:30 +0200
From:	Peter Nørlund <pch@...bogen.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: ipv4: add hash-based multipath routing

Hi all,

I'm working on adding L3/L4 hash-based IPv4 multipath to the kernel,
but I wonder what the best approach for the mainline kernel is.

When the IPv6 multipath code was added, choosing the routing algorithm
by means of compile-time config or sysctl was rejected, so I assume
that we want to revive the RTA_MP_ALGO or a new attribute?

The IPv6 multipath uses L4 balancing - which is fine for IPv6 where
fragmentation does not happend - but in my opinion the safest default
for IPv4 is L3, especially when multipath is used together with anycast.

My main problem is the existing multipath code which is really old
(linux 2.1.66). From the looks of it, it attempts to be somewhat random,
but in reality it is more or less weighted round-robin, and as far as I
can tell it even has an off-by-one error in its handling of the random
value. I think it is wise to support L3, L4, and per-packet
load-balancing, just like the hardware vendors, but must the per-packet
load-balancing be default, or is it okay to change the default
behavior? Also, would a weighted round-robin with a single per-cpu
counter suffice? This would get rid of the spinlock and avoid causing
cache invalidations of the route info with each packet. But it would not
be true round-robin, which would require a per-route-info counter. If
we are promising round-robin it is bad, but if we are simply promising
weighted per-packet load-balancing, it's a different matter.

Regards,
Peter Nørlund
--
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