Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: Shrinking ext3 directories | Date | Fri, 5 Jul 2002 04:11:02 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 04 July 2002 16:15, jlnance@intrex.net wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 06:48:45AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > behaviour under certain application workloads. With the half-md4, at > > > least we can expect decent worst-case behaviour unless we're under > > > active attack (ie. only maliscious apps get hurt). > > > > OK, anti-hash-attack is on the list of things to do, and it's fairly > > clear how to go about it: > > Is it really worth the trouble and complexity to do anti-hash-attack? > What is the worst that could happen if someone managed to create a bunch > of files that hashed to the same value?
Just a slowdown, but in some cases it could be a quadratic slowdown that could conceivably be turned into a denial of service. As risks go, it's a minor one, but there's a straightforward solution with insignificant cost in either efficiency or code size, so why not do it. The overhead is just a data move from the superblock per name hash.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |