netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4 v2] Convert rhashtable to use bitlocks

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: <20190407.191255.1243683680105907349.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 07 Apr 2019 19:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     neilb@...e.com
Cc:     tgraf@...g.ch, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v2] Convert rhashtable to use bitlocks

From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:07:45 +1100

> This series converts rhashtable to use a per-bucket bitlock
> rather than a separate array of spinlocks.
> This:
>   reduces memory usage
>   results in slightly fewer memory accesses
>   slightly improves parallelism
>   makes a configuration option unnecessary
> 
> The main change from previous version is to use a distinct type for
> the pointer in the bucket which has a bit-lock in it.  This
> helped find two places where rht_ptr() was missed, one
> in  rhashtable_free_and_destroy() in print_ht in the test code.

This looks good to me and I haven't seen any major objections.

I think however the thing is encoded, an unsigned long or a pointer,
the cleanliness is basically a wash.

Thanks.