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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:45:43 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	Patrick McHardy <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,
	Herbert Xu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add qdisc->ops->peek() support.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 04:12:03PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Some general thoughts ...
> We've never had any systematic checks for useful and non-useful
> combination of qdiscs, which is causing a lot of these complications.
> Think of all the multiq work that was required to make it work
> properly with non-work-conserving qdiscs - while at the same time,
> using a non-work-conserving qdisc (which require a global view)
> defeats basically all of the benefits.
> So it would be really useful to come up with a systematic definition
> of valid combinations instead of trying handling lots of purely
> theoretical case that don't make sense. One more example - all the
> qdiscs implement ->drop(), yet its only needed by CBQ and it doesn't
> make any sense at all to use lets say HFSC as child of CBQ.
> About this specific case - yes, it would break compatibility for
> users using f.i. TBF as child of netem. But if you look at the
> netem_enqueue() function, it in fact assumes that the inner qdisc
> is a tfifo, so we'd be breaking an already broken case. We can
> of course be nice and warn about it for a few releases, but I believe
> there is some real potential for simplification that makes it
> worth it.

I'm not sure this is all right: at least until there is not too much
problems with some code (like with requeuing). We probably should try
before this official ways like feature-removal-schedule.txt, and/or
maybe some CONFIG_XXX_DEPRECATED things. But I don't persist with this.

BTW, I'm not sure if I'm expected to redo any patches in this thread.
(Probably some things like this teql_peek() could be removed with
->requeue() killing.)

Jarek P.
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