netdev - Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

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: <20080417182935.GB17054@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:29:35 +0100
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked
	version of Tomasz's patch set

| > | @@ -545,6 +549,8 @@ struct dccp_sock {
| > |         __u8                            dccps_hc_tx_insert_options:1;
| > |         __u8                            dccps_server_timewait:1;
| > |         struct timer_list               dccps_xmit_timer;
| > | +       struct queuing_policy           *dccps_policy;
| > | +       void                            *dccps_policy_data;
| > |  };
| > |
| > | I think this should be just one field for the policy, and the
| > | policy_data can be an internal field of `struct queueing_policy'
| > | (compare with struct ackvec or struct ccid).
| > |  --- END ---
| >
| > Hm, even after reading it again I still find that I don't like void*
| > fields. It may be a personal thing, but I think using void* as part of a
| > field is bad (and this was in an even earlier comment).
| >
| The next paragraph was in fact about void* pointers. But the paragraph I 
| quoted above talks only about whether those three values (policy 
| numer/pointer, tx_qlen and possibly other data) should be put directly in 
| struct dccp_sock or grouped in stuct queueing_policy which in turn should be 
| one field in struct dccp_sock. In the mail from 18/03/2008 you seemed to be 
| in favour of grouping, in the one from 15/04/2008 you seemed to contradict 
| your earlier statement. At least that's how I understood it.
| But never mind, both ways are ok for me.
| -- 
Those things only became clearer when looking at the code for a while. I
have reworked some of your userland code and done some tests with it.

There was a bug with the 32-bit compatibility layer, I have posted a
message to netdev. On x86 it was found to work correctly.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

--
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