netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem

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: <166fe7950809101344l7a5e2b7pfba8b2a7c03814a1@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:44:23 -0700
From:	"Ranjit Manomohan" <ranjitm@...gle.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	menage@...gle.com, tgraf@...g.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> I definitely prefer Thomas Graf's work, this stuff is very ugly
> and way overengineered.
>

Could you be more specific? Thomas' work is almost identical to this
(except that he does not store the cgroup id into the socket which is
a trivial change which has downsides which I have pointed out).

Additionally this approach has only minor modifications to the core
networking stack. What portions do you consider ugly and over
engineered and what alternative implementations would you prefer?
Please see the follow up I have sent to Thomas' proposal about why we
need this design approach to handle the inbound case.

I'd be ok if you accepted either change since  we just want a standard
kernel mechanism to do this.

-Thanks,
Ranjit

> So no, I won't consider for net-next-2.6, sorry.
>
>
--
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