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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:12:10 +0100
From:	Mattias Rönnblom <>
Subject: Leaky Bucket qdisc

Hi all,

to learn a little something about the kernel and to be able to do some
benchmarks on the HR timers I wrote a leaky bucket traffic shaping

For those who don't know, leaky bucket requires (very) high resolution
timers, and is more strict than TBF in that it doesn't allow a burst
(other than a single frame will go out at a line speed, of course).

However, my understanding from the TBF qdisc documentation is that you
can achieve the same effect with TBF, even to the point of not
allowing any bursts, which makes LB pretty much redundant. I thought I
would send this e-mail anyway, to see if there was some interest in
this little piece of code. If so, I'll try to clean it up and submit

One benefit with LB is that it's very easy to configure. There's only
one parameter: the configured rate. It's non-work conserving and my
implementation is classless, with an inner qdisc, just like TBF. I've
patched 'tc' too to cope with LB.

It requires HR timers, and the better timers, the closer to the
configured rate you'll get. My system's timer resolution allows me to
shape with up to about 100 Mbit/s, if I recall correctly.

Best regards,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists