lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: Question about tcp hash function tcp_hashfn()
    From
    From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>
    Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:03:02 +0400

    > Current simple XOR hash used in socket selection code is just bloody
    > good! Jenkins hash unfortunately has _significant_ artefacts which
    > were found in netchannel [1] hash selection analysis [2]. And
    > Jenkins hash is far too slower.

    Yes, it wins from a simplicity standpoint and it performs quite well.
    It was tuned from real socket data sets, but from systems running many
    many years ago :)

    FreeBSD even adopted this hash into their PCB hashing code at one
    point.

    I think it will need to be changed nevertheless. Even though this
    hash works on established sockets, it is attackable just like the
    routing hash used to be. If an attacker has sufficient resources, he
    can make hash chains in the TCP established hash table very long. As
    the years pass, it becomes easier and easier for one to have enough
    computing power at their disposal to carry out this kind of attack.

    So something like Jenkins with a random hash input become more and
    more critical. And this requires some kind of way to rehash, RCU
    table locking opens the door for that. Current locking scheme is
    too tightly bound for that kind of flexibility.

    I wish Ben L. would resubmit the TCP hash locking stuff he said he'd
    work on. :)
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-31 11:15    [W:0.020 / U:0.196 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site