netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/1] tc: report time an action was first used

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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 05:09:03 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
Cc:     stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/1] tc: report time an action was first
 used

On 2020-05-18 11:38 a.m., David Ahern wrote:
> On 5/18/20 7:10 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On 2020-05-17 9:28 a.m., Roman Mashak wrote:
>>> Have print_tm() dump firstuse value along with install, lastuse
>>> and expires.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tc/tc_util.c | 5 +++++
>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tc/tc_util.c b/tc/tc_util.c
>>> index 12f865cc71bf..f6aa2ed552a9 100644
>>> --- a/tc/tc_util.c
>>> +++ b/tc/tc_util.c
>>> @@ -760,6 +760,11 @@ void print_tm(FILE *f, const struct tcf_t *tm)
>>>            print_uint(PRINT_FP, NULL, " used %u sec",
>>>                   (unsigned int)(tm->lastuse/hz));
>>>        }
>>> +    if (tm->firstuse != 0) {
>>> +        print_uint(PRINT_JSON, "first_used", NULL, tm->firstuse);
>>> +        print_uint(PRINT_FP, NULL, " firstused %u sec",
>>> +               (unsigned int)(tm->firstuse/hz));
>>> +    }
>>
>> Maybe an else as well to print something like "firstused NEVER"
>> or alternatively just print 0 (to be backward compatible on old
>> kernels it will never be zero).
>>
> 
> existing times do not, so shouldn't this be consistent?
> 

Good point..

cheers,
jamal