netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:53:16 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Thomas Graf" <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	"Ranjit Manomohan" <ranjitm@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Traffic control cgroups subsystem

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> wrote:
>
> That's argueable I guess. Likely or not, it doesn't make sense to
> add such restrictions if not required, especially not when it is
> trivial to just look at the cgroup of the task directly.

Isn't a very large fraction of outgoing network traffic driven from
net_tx_action(), which doesn't execute in the context of the sending
process? Or am I missing something?

You claimed "In the most common case, the packet is not queued before
it hits the qdisc so this takes away a lot of complexity and is very
fast but should still be sufficient.". But is that really true on a
system where the network is busy? (Which is after all exactly the case
where you care about accurate traffic accounting/policing)

Paul
--
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