netdev - Re: [PATCHv2] sctp: Fix port hash table size computation

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:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:41:09 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] sctp: Fix port hash table size computation

On ven., 2016-02-19 at 09:07 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:

> I had actually thought about that, but to be frank I felt like the logic to
> compute the hashsize was complex the way it was presented currently, and that my
> rewite made it more clear, breaking it down into a few easy steps:
> 
> 1) compute a goal size order
> 2) compute the target order for the largest table we want to support
> 3) select the minimum of (1) and (2)
> 4) allocated the largest table we can up to the size in (3)
> 5) compute how many buckets the table we allocated in (4) supports
> 
> 
> I'm happy to use your suggestion above if the consensus is that its more clear,
> but it took me a bit to figure out what exactly the existing code was trying to
> do (especially given the dual use of the order variable), so I thought some
> additional clarity was called for.

No strong feelings. I only took a look in other places like
net/dccp/proto.c for similar problem.