netdev - Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

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: <20160330.123821.328761526754742195.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:38:21 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	johannes@...solutions.net
Cc:	greearb@...delatech.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:14:12 +0200

> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 09:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> Looks like rhashtable has too much policy in it to properly deal with
>> cases where there are too many hash collisions, so I am going to work
>> on reverting it's use in mac80211.
> 
> I'm not really all that happy with that approach - can't we fix the
> rhashtable? It's a pretty rare corner case that many keys really are
> identical and no kind of hash algorithm, but it seems much better to
> still deal with it than to remove the rhashtable usage and go back to
> hand-rolling something.

Yeah reverting seems like a really idiotic way to deal with the issue.