News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New ‘Meow’ attack has deleted almost 4k unsecured databases by inetknght on Sunday July 26, 2020 @03:17PM (#23959420)
1) you're right, I edited my message to reflect that I meant a graph traversal algorithm.

2) a visited flag on an edge? That won't support simultaneous traversals. Keeping a stack is a lot more efficient than permitting only one traversal at a time.

Re:New ‘Meow’ attack has deleted almost 4k unsecured databases by red0point on Sunday July 26, 2020 @05:34PM (#23960359)
I‘m not sure why you‘re bringing concurrency to the table.

My point still is that looking something up in a stack (did I visit this node?) costs O(n) time, so the BFS will degrade from O(m+n) to O(m*n+n).

To come back to the concurrency, if you can index your edges in some way, you can also store the visited flag in a separate datastracture to support concurrent access (one „flag store“ for each access).

Re:New ‘Meow’ attack has deleted almost 4k unsecured databases by inetknght on Sunday July 26, 2020 @07:59PM (#23961105)
> I‘m not sure why you‘re bringing concurrency to the table.

Not using data structures that enable concurrency prevents performance improvements since modern hardware is, in general, more parallel than vertical.