netdev - Re: Question about HFSC atm+man patches

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: <492E7B0B.8000601@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:48:43 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>
CC:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about HFSC atm+man patches

Michal Soltys wrote:
> One question regarding size tables:
> 
> Should I assume that subsequent qdiscs attached to HFSC leaves will not 
> use [different] size tables ?
> 
> This is currently the case, but from the perspective of a generic 
> solution - if some inner qdisc changes pkt_len stored in cb area during 
> qdisc_enqueue, then HFSC might get wrong size during peek operation.
> 
> As leaves will usually have "simple" work-conserving qdiscs attached, 
> this is probably not an issue, but ...

Using different size tables for inner qdiscs is supposed to work.
What is the "wrong size"? ->peek() should return a packet with the
size the same as ->dequeue() would, which I think it does.
--
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