netdev - Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4: Drop suffix update from resize code

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: <1480959410.11947.14.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:36:52 +0000
From:   "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "rshearma@...cade.com" <rshearma@...cade.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4: Drop suffix update from resize code

On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 12:28 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> 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?

I think it is the fact that he is trying to restore "all routes" and
some of the routes already exist such as those associated with his
default network interface.

- Alex