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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:28:46 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: rshearma@...cade.com Cc: alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4: Drop suffix update from resize code From: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:05:18 +0000 > On 01/12/16 12:27, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is >> called >> on a large node in which most of the suffix lengths are the same. The >> time >> required to add 200K entries had increased from around 3 seconds to >> almost >> 49 seconds. >> >> In order to address this we need to move the code for updating the >> suffix >> out of resize and instead just have it handled in the cases where we >> are >> pushing a node that increases the suffix length, or will decrease the >> suffix length. >> >> Fixes: 5405afd1a306 ("fib_trie: Add tracking value for suffix length") >> Reported-by: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> > > $ time sudo ip route restore < ~/allroutes > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > RTNETLINK answers: File exists What are these errors all about?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists