netdev - Re: Is bug 200755 in anyone's queue??

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: <87cef966-a94c-7705-26a6-0d6361f98a7a@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:26:19 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Steve Zabele <zabele@...cast.net>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Mark KEATON <mark.keaton@...theon.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "shum@...ndrew.org" <shum@...ndrew.org>,
        "vladimir116@...il.com" <vladimir116@...il.com>,
        "saifi.khan@...ikr.in" <saifi.khan@...ikr.in>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "on2k16nm@...il.com" <on2k16nm@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: Is bug 200755 in anyone's queue??



On 9/4/19 5:46 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:51 AM Steve Zabele <zabele@...cast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think a dual table approach makes a lot of sense here, especially if we look at the different use cases. For the DNS server example, almost certainly there will not be any connected sockets using the server port, so a test of whether the connected table is empty (maybe a boolean stored with the unconnected table?)


UDP hash tables are shared among netns, and the hashes function depend on a netns salt ( net_hash_mix())

(see udp_hashfn() definition)

So a boolean would be polluted on a slot having both non connected socket on netns A, and a connected socket for netns B.


 should get to the existing code very quickly and not require accessing the memory holding the connected table. For our use case, the connected sockets persist for long periods (at network timescales at least) and so any rehashing should be infrequent and so have limited impact on performance overall.
>>
>> So does a dual table approach seem workable to other folks that know the internals?
> 
> Let me take a stab and compare. A dual table does bring it more in
> line with how the TCP code is structured.
>