netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH] QoS TBF and latency configuration misbehavior

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: <20100901063602.GA6285@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:36:03 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Cc:	Dan Kruchinin <dkruchinin@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] QoS TBF and latency configuration misbehavior

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:34:02AM +0400, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello!
Hi!

> To Jarek: about the scripts. I do not think something will be broken
> by fixing this error. Eventually, if someone used "latency", he meant
> something about real latency. And even if the value was generated
> using the same wrong logic as tc did, using correct formula would just
> increase limit setting.

As I wrote earlier, I'm more worried about configs based on experience,
not logic. Dan's tests show there could be a difference, and I'm not
sure users cared about the logic, since it wasn't questioned until now.
Btw, there could be considered adding a new, alternative parameter, for
this, like rlatency etc. if it's so crucial. And, of course, it's only
my little "IMHO", I don't insist on anything.

Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
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