netdev - Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order

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:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:48:08 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Iskren Chernev <iskren@....im>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > 
> > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done
> > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages").
> > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word
> > "priority" can be understood in two different senses.
> > 
> > How about more explicit formulation, e.g.
> > 
> >   ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric
> >   values).
> > 
> > Would that be better?
> 
> Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about
> this:
> 
> diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644
> --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a
>  .B selector
>  and an
>  .B action predicate.
> -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector
> +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector
>  of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming
>  interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet,
>  the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success.
> @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match.
>  
>  .TP
>  .BI priority " PREFERENCE"
> -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly
> -set
> +the priority of this rule.
> +.I PREFERENCE
> +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority.  Each rule
> +should have an explicitly set
>  .I unique
>  priority value.
>  The options preference and order are synonyms with priority.

Formally, this would be certainly sufficient. But for clarity (and
inattentive readers), I would still prefer to be more explicit in the
first hunk, e.g.

  ... in order of decreasing priority (increasing PREFERENCE values).

Michal Kubecek