netdev - Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: Add a second bind table hashed by port and address"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2271ed3c6cbc3cd65680734107d773ee22ccfb3d.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:01:36 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: Add a second bind table hashed by port
 and address"

On Wed, 2022-06-15 at 23:24 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:32 PM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > This reverts:
> > 
> > commit d5a42de8bdbe ("net: Add a second bind table hashed by port and address")
> > commit 538aaf9b2383 ("selftests: Add test for timing a bind request to a port with a populated bhash entry")
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220520001834.2247810-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> > 
> > There are a few things that need to be fixed here:
> > * Updating bhash2 in cases where the socket's rcv saddr changes
> > * Adding bhash2 hashbucket locks
> > 
> > Links to syzbot reports:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/00000000000022208805e0df247a@google.com/
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0000000000003f33bc05dfaf44fe@google.com/
> > 
> > Fixes: d5a42de8bdbe ("net: Add a second bind table hashed by port and address")
> > Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> 
> Do we really need to remove the test ? It is a benchmark, and should
> not 'fail' on old kernels.

I agree it's nice to keep the self-test alive.

Side notes, not strictly related to the revert: the self test is not
currently executed by `make run_tests` and requires some additional
setup: ulimit -n <high number>, 2001:db8:0:f101::1 being a locally
available address, and a mandatory command line argument.

@Joanne: you should additionally provide a wrapper script to handle the
above and update TEST_PROGS accordingly. As for this revert, could you
please re-post it touching the kernel code only?

Thanks,

Paolo