netdev - Re: Massive hash collisions on FIB

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: <8e3fcb81-0b3f-4871-b613-0f1d2ed321a3@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 21:46:46 +0200
From: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@...il.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Massive hash collisions on FIB

On 25/09/2024 21:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:06 PM Alexandre Ferrieux
> 
>> [...] why are
>> the IPv4 and IPv6 FIB-exact-lookup implementations different/duplicated ?
>  
> You know we make these kinds of changes whenever they are needed for
> our workload.
> 
> Just submit a patch, stop wondering why it was not already done.

Sure, will do shortly.

However, I was not wondering about the history behind net_hash_mix(), but more
generally why there are two parallel implementations of FIB insertion.