netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing

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:	Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:25:24 -0700
From:	"Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	torsten.schmidt@...06.tu-chemnitz.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing

On 01/12/2010 02:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:59:36 -0800
> 
>> What has changed is how network equipment is required to interpret
>> the meaning of those bits.
>>
>> Even if we pass the bits "as is" to the network, if the network is
>> applying entirely new semantics (and when I say "entirely new", I
>> mean those mandated since 1998), then compatibility in the host
>> kernel API doesn't matter a hoot since the packets will still be
>> handled by every transited router according to the modern semantics.
> 
> People really don't assign global meaning to bits set by applications
> in the TOS field.
> 
> What they do is they have a set of semantics inside of their cloud of
> routers and switch points for diffserv, and when packets come in the
> TOS field is rewritten to whatever scheme is being used inside of that
> cloud.
> 
> And the diffserv bits only have meaning and effect within that cloud.
> 
> So really, having a syscall that sets the TOS bits exactly by
> applications is just fine.
> 
> People are doing diffserv right now with Linux and have done so
> for years.

Sorry about coming back to this weeks later... but I hadn't seen RFC 4594 previously.

What if boxes (i.e. the OS) and applications can preconfigured to use RFC-4594 guidelines by default, and varying from that required the administrator to make specific changes?

I agree with the notion that certain values should be set side-wide (or at least system-wide) to prevent malicious users from exploiting QoS...  that's why I've been advocating for QoS settings to be specified in a system configuration file, and not a per-user configuration file.

-Philip
--
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