netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: Network Resource Manager (NRM)

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: <49fbc4c9-6e8d-5115-0860-e418427a2ce5@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:43:51 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: Network Resource Manager (NRM)



On 02/23/2019 12:40 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:39:53AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/22/2019 07:03 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 2/22/19 8:06 PM, brakmo wrote:
>>>> Network Resource Manager is a framework for limiting the bandwidth used
>>>> by v2 cgroups. It consists of 4 BPF helpers and a sample BPF program to
>>>> limit egress bandwdith as well as a sample user program and script to
>>>> simplify NRM testing.
>>>
>>> 'resource manager' is a really generic name. Since you are referring to
>>> bandwidth, how about renaming to Network Bandwidth Manager?
>>>
>>
>> Or just use the normal word for a policer ...
>>
>> Really this is beyond me that TCP experts can still push policers out there,
>> they are really a huge pain.
> 
> hmm. please see our NRM presentation at LPC.
> It is a networking _resource_ management for cgroups.
> Bandwidth enforcement is a particular example.
> It's not a policer either.
> 

Well, this definitely looks a policer to me, sorry if we disagree, this is fine.