linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] res_counter: introduce ratelimiting attributes

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]

Message-ID: <2fdd7e9df2c0b9380a0b1fcdedafecf7.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:19:39 +0900 (JST)
From:	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Andrea Righi" <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Cc:	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Gui Jianfeng" <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>, agk@...rceware.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk, baramsori72@...il.com,
	"Carl Henrik Lunde" <chlunde@...g.uio.no>, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	"Divyesh Shah" <dpshah@...gle.com>, eric.rannaud@...il.com,
	fernando@....ntt.co.jp, "Hirokazu Takahashi" <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	"Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, matt@...ehost.com,
	dradford@...ehost.com, ngupta@...gle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	roberto@...it.it, "Ryo Tsuruta" <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	"Satoshi UCHIDA" <s-uchida@...jp.nec.com>,
	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp,
	"Nauman Rafique" <nauman@...gle.com>, fchecconi@...il.com,
	paolo.valente@...more.it, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] res_counter: introduce ratelimiting attributes

Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:15:34AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

>> It's very bad if cacheline of spinlock is different from data field, in
>> future.
>
> Regarding the new attributes, policy can be surely an unsigned int or
> even less (now only 1 bit is used!), maybe we can just add an unsigned
> int flags, and encode also potential future informations there.
agreed.

>
> Moreover, are we sure we really need an unsigned long long for failcnt?
>
I think "int" is enough for failcnt.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/