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  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, 25 Jan 2007 01:06:26 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <>
To:	Russell Stuart <>
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH	REPOST	1/2]	NET:	Accurate	packet	scheduling	for	ATM/ADSL

Russell Stuart wrote:
> Yuk!  Now the user has to say whether he wants to use
> STAB's or not?  Currently, apart from some debugging
> params to tc, the user isn't even aware that the 
> traffic control is implemented in terms of RTAB's.  
> That is how it should be - it is an implementation 
> detail.

Of course he has to, just like your "atm" parameter. In case
of stabs it would be something like "stab atm".

>>I think this is a different problem. If you replace RTABs
>>by STABs you again can't use it for anything that is only
>>interested in the size, not the transmission time (HFSC,
>>SFQ, ...).
> I was a little too brief.
> The comment stems from the observation that in all
> current implementations:
>    const A_CONSTANT;
>    for (i = 0; i < 256; i += 1)
>      assert(RTAB[i] == STAB[i] * A_CONSTANT);
> Ergo, if in addition to implementing STAB as you
> plan to, A_CONSTANT was shipped to the kernel then
> RTAB could be replaced.

At least look at the patch I sent. STAB mapping is _not_ a
multiplication by a constant (which wouldn't be able to
express minimum packet size or padding to multiples of cell
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists