From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rhashtable: Add parent argument to mutex_is_held Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:20:00 +0000 Message-ID: <20141117062000.GB8723@casper.infradead.org> References: <20141113101025.GA3728@gondor.apana.org.au> <20141113103723.GO19157@casper.infradead.org> <20141113103834.GA4024@gondor.apana.org.au> <20141113104124.GA24379@casper.infradead.org> <20141113104343.GA4112@gondor.apana.org.au> <20141115032512.GA19299@gondor.apana.org.au> <20141115111626.GP19157@casper.infradead.org> <20141115112313.GA20970@gondor.apana.org.au> <20141115155108.GA21998@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, "David S. Miller" To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:52993 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112AbaKQGUD (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 01:20:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141115155108.GA21998@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/15/14 at 11:51pm, Herbert Xu wrote: > So I noticed that you got rid of the rehash when you converted > netlink over to rthashtable. Was this aspect of the conversion > discussed anywhere? In particular, how do you protect against > a malicious user that's trying to attack the netlink hash table? I looked at the trade off between lockless lookups and rehashing and figured it makes sense to chose making lookups cheaper as sockets can be constrained per user. However, given the followup-up discussion it seems we can get both. Thomas