netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 06/23] ovpn: introduce the ovpn

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: <ZzORATd5hG614dta@hog>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:31:45 +0100
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>
Cc: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 06/23] ovpn: introduce the ovpn_peer object

2024-11-10, 15:38:27 +0200, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
> On 29.10.2024 12:47, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > An ovpn_peer object holds the whole status of a remote peer
> > (regardless whether it is a server or a client).
> > 
> > This includes status for crypto, tx/rx buffers, napi, etc.
> > 
> > Only support for one peer is introduced (P2P mode).
> > Multi peer support is introduced with a later patch.
> 
> Reviewing the peer creation/destroying code I came to a generic question.
> Did you consider keeping a single P2P peer in the peers table as well?
> 
> Looks like such approach can greatly simply the code by dropping all these
> 'switch (ovpn->mode)' checks and implementing a unified peer management. The
> 'peer' field in the main private data structure can be kept to accelerate
> lookups, still using peers table for management tasks like removing all the
> peers on the interface teardown.

It would save a few 'switch(mode)', but force every client to allocate
the hashtable for no reason at all. That tradeoff doesn't look very
beneficial to me, the P2P-specific code is really simple. And if you
keep ovpn->peer to make lookups faster, you're not removing that many
'switch(mode)'.

-- 
Sabrina