netdev - Re: setsockopt(IP_TOS) being privileged or distinct capability?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:56:06 +0200
From:	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>
To:	Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>
Cc:	Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: setsockopt(IP_TOS) being privileged or distinct capability?

Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com> writes:

> Once QoS markings actually *are* implemented in carrier networks, the
> potential for abuse is non-insignificant.  Hence the suggestion to
> make it privileged.

I think you are overestimating the potential for abuse. ISP's who
oversubscribe enough to suffer from heavy congestion internally should
stop doing that and most likely have fancy congestion control equipment
installed. That equipment can apply all sorts of limits to prioritized
traffic.

For a more typical ISP, marking TCP packets with EF means you get
marginally lower and more stable latency but risk increased packet loss.
TCP does not mind a little extra latency and suffers badly from packet
loss, so that behaviour should be self-limiting.

/Benny

--
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