Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 08 Sep 2021 21:56:12 -0400
From:   Hamza Mahfooz <someguy@effective-light.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireguard: convert index_hashtable and pubkey_hashtable
 into rhashtables
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Message-Id: <OD95ZQ.FW5WHNPSV04F@effective-light.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9oSo=4BtfO+=327n=gsor5gWcvhzAMS_BpqQ-6=6yxVRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210806044315.169657-1-someguy@effective-light.com>
        <OD24ZQ.IQOQXX8U0YST@effective-light.com>
        <CAHmME9oSo=4BtfO+=327n=gsor5gWcvhzAMS_BpqQ-6=6yxVRA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk

Hey Jason,
On Wed, Sep 8 2021 at 01:27:12 PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld 
<Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> - What's performance like? Does the abstraction of rhashtable
> introduce overhead? These are used in fast paths -- for every packet
> -- so being quick is important.

Are you familiar with any (micro)benchmarks (for WireGuard) that, you
believe would be particularly informative in assessing the outlined
performance characteristics?

> - How does this interact with the timing side channel concerns in the
> comment of the file? Will the time required to find an unused index
> leak the number of items in the hash table? Do we need stochastic
> masking? Or is the construction of rhashtable such that we always get
> ball-park same time?

I think the maintainers of rhashtable are best positioned to answer 
these
questions (I have cc'd them).