Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Design design needed: #14093 - Unable to create a new session key on higher traffic
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Paul McMillan  
View profile  
 More options Feb 11 2011, 9:31 pm
From: Paul McMillan <p...@mcmillan.ws>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:31:38 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2011 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: Design design needed: #14093 - Unable to create a new session key on higher traffic
Do we absolutely have proof that the original problem is caused for
sure by session key collisions? The assertion here is that we're
generating 10000 md5s and that NONE of those is unique and so the
function is timing out.

This is preposterous.

If this were actually the case, I could generate my own 10,000 md5s
and log into each of those users sessions as an attacker. Sessions
expire in 15 days. MD5 provides a reasonable distribution across the
namespace. If you've generated 10k md5s and NONE of them is unique,
you've got the md5 namespace pretty well covered (or you're using
really bad random input data, which we are not), meaning your session
key database has (conservatively) more than 10^20 petabytes of data.

Right.

The alternative explanation is that the cache backend is timing out.
The 10k loop fix basically masked that issue by trying a bunch of
times till it got a response. The fix for this issue is going to lie
in improving behavior when the cache doesn't respond properly, not in
fixing the key collision problem.

Additionally, UUID4's are only very probably unique. You are proposing
to move to a 103 bit random value (after excluding the fixed bits)
instead of the existing 512 bit value.

I predict that a patch which removes the 10k loop will make the
problem worse, with or without UUIDs.

Sorry to be blunt, but lets tackle the real problem here, rather than
making things harder for ourselves.

Best,
-Paul


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.