netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sch_netem: Remove classful functionality

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, 4 Nov 2008 09:56:42 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sch_netem: Remove classful functionality

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:06:30AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:20:25 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
> 
> > Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:37:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > >> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> > >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:20:10 +0000
> > >>
> > >> Jarek, I applied this patch and your second one to net-next-2.6
> > >>
> > >> But I did this only because I trust that you will address Stephen's
> > >> feedback wrt. making existing netem functionality available in
> > >> some way.
> > >>
> > >> Otherwise I'll have to revert these changes.
> > > 
> > > Hmm... I thought there was kind of RFC for this, and it looked like
> > > Patrick's idea won 100% of votes, but I'm not good in counting...
> > > 
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469801712438&w=2
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469674709761&w=2
> > > 
> > > Anyway, IMHO adding TBF etc. functionalities to tfifo doesn't make
> > > much sense, and if they are really needed it's better to revert
> > > these patches and chose one of the other ways of doing reorder
> > > proposed in this earlier thread.
> > 
> > Whats wrong with simply using TBF as parent qdisc of netem?
> 
> It works but does something slightly different.
> 
>    netem inside TBF is like long delay network followed by choke on last hop
>    TBF inside netem was like choke on uplink followed by long delay network.

David, this makes sense to me, so please revert these two patches.
(Then, I think we're still at RFC stage.)

Thanks.
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html