netdev - Re: qdisc_enqueue, NET_XMIT_SUCCESS and kfree

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: <48AAC5E9.7050809@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:08:57 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jussi.kivilinna@...et.fi,
	jarkao2@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: qdisc_enqueue, NET_XMIT_SUCCESS and kfree_skb

Herbert Xu wrote:
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> In fact, as I look at how TBF and NETEM want to use ->requeue() they
>> could just the same implement it using my suggested alternative for
>> ->requeue() which is just an SKB list ala gso_list hung off of the
>> qdisc.
> 
> For TBF at least its requeue is actually a bit more sophisticated.
> For example, if you hang a prio qdisc off a TBF, then when the
> packet is requeued into the prio, the next time TBF dequeues it,
> it may get a different packet (of a higher priority).
> 
> If you stick it to a list without requeueing, then packets of a
> higher priority won't be able to jump the queue anymore.
> 
> It might be possible to rewrite TBF to not use requeueing, after
> all HTB does it all without requeueing.  However as it stands,
> TBF does need it.
> 
> I haven't followed this thread closely so what is the main problem
> with requeueing (apart from being abused by things like LLTX drivers
> and/or NETEM, nothing other than qdiscs like TBF should use it)?
> 
> Another possibility would to replace requeue by a peek+force_dequeue
> interface, where you can peek at the next packet, and you could then
> dequeue that particular packet if you're satisfied.

That would be fine for TBF since it only needs to check whether
the current packet exceeds the limit and reschedule otherwise.
HFSC OTOH really needs to know the length of the next packet for
calculating the deadline.
--
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