From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipv6: use stronger hash for reassembly queue hash table
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 16:54:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20130308155404.GE28531@order.stressinduktion.org>
References: <20130307214211.GP7941@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130308055718.GA28531@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130308130433.GB28531@order.stressinduktion.org> <1362754386.15793.226.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130308150831.GD28531@order.stressinduktion.org> <1362756219.15793.240.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:51569 "EHLO
	order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933200Ab3CHPyF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:54:05 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1362756219.15793.240.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:23:39AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 16:08 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:53:06AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > No matter how you hash, a hacker can easily fill your defrag unit with
> > > not complete datagrams, so what's the point ?
> > 
> > I want to harden reassembly logic against all fragments being put in
> > the same hash bucket because of malicious traffic and thus creating
> > long list traversals in the fragment queue hash table.
> 
> Note that the long traversal was a real issue with TCP (thats why I
> introduced ipv6_addr_jhash()), as a single ehash slot could contains
> thousand of sockets.
> 
> But with fragments, we should just limit the depth of any particular
> slot, and drop above a particular threshold.
> 
> reassembly is a best effort mechanism, better make sure it doesnt use
> all our cpu cycles.

Hm, I have to think about it, especially because it is used in the netfilter
code. There could be some fairness issues if packets get dropped in netfilter
if reassembly could not be performed. I'll check this.

Btw. did s.o. have a look at skb->rxhash? I just started looking after
its many users but perhaps someone did this job already.