linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:01:43 +0100
From:	Andreas Oberritter <obi@...uxtv.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	HoP <jpetrous@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because
 of worrying about possible misusage?

On 06.12.2011 12:21, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:41:38PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 05.12.2011 18:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 
>>> When you put someone via the network, issues like latency,  package
>>> drops, IP
>>> congestion, QoS issues, cryptography, tunneling, etc should be taken
>>> into account
>>> by the application, in order to properly address the network issues.
> 
>> Are you serious? Lower networking layers should be transparent to the
>> upper layers. You don't implement VPN or say TCP in all of your
>> applications, do you? These are just some more made-up arguments which
>> don't have anything to do with the use cases I explained earlier.
> 
> For real time applications it does make a big difference - decisions
> taken at the application level can greatly impact end application
> performance.  For example with VoIP on a LAN you can get great audio
> quality by using very little compression at the expense of high
> bandwidth and you can probably use a very small jitter buffer.  Try
> doing that over a longer distance or more congested network which drops
> packets and it becomes useful to use a more commpressed encoding for
> your data which may have better features for handling packet loss, or to
> increase your jitter buffer to cope with the less reliable transmit
> times.

Can you please explain how this relates to the topic we're discussing?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/