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: <20160401004627.GA9367@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 1 Apr 2016 08:46:27 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:29:59PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> Does removing this completely disable the "-EEXIST" error? I can't say
> I fully understand the elasticity stuff in __rhashtable_insert_fast().

What EEXIST error are you talking about? The only one that can be
returned on insertion is if you're explicitly checking for dups
which clearly can't be the case for you.

If you're talking about the EEXIST error due to a rehash then it is
completely hidden from you by rhashtable_insert_rehash.

If you actually meant EBUSY then yes this should prevent it from
occurring, unless your chain-length exceeds 2^32.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt