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  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:   Wed, 27 May 2020 18:25:10 +0200
From:   Petr Machata <>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>
Cc:     netdev <>, Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Ido Schimmel <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] TC: Introduce qevents

Vladimir Oltean <> writes:

> I only took a cursory glance at your patches. Can these "qevents" be
> added to code outside of the packet scheduler, like to the bridge, for
> example? Or can the bridge mark the packets somehow, and then any
> generic qdisc be able to recognize this mark without specific code?
> A very common use case which is currently not possible to implement is
> to rate-limit flooded (broadcast, unknown unicast, unknown multicast)
> traffic. Can your "qevents" be used to describe this, or must it be
> described separately?

You mean something like a "flood" qevent? In principle nothing prevents
this, but it does not strike me as a very good fit. These events are
meant to be used on qdiscs, hence the "q" in the name. I am not sure it
makes sense to reuse them for bridge traffic policing.

Peeking in 802.1Q, I see "Managed objects for per-stream filtering and
policing". If that's related, it seems like it would be conservative to
model the policing directly in the bridge, instead of this round-about
through TC.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists