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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:12:55 +0100 From: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com> To: <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com> CC: <petrm@...dia.com>, <g@...-lt-70577>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <dsahern@...nel.org>, <stephen@...workplumber.org>, <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/2] dcb: add new pcp-prio parameter to dcb app <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com> writes: >> Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com> writes: >> >> > This looks good to me overall, I just have a few nits. >> >> Actually, one more fairly fundamental thing that occurred to me. If a >> user doesn't care about DEI, they need to do this using two rules: say >> 1:1 and 1de:1. >> >> I wonder if it would make sense to assume that people are more likely to >> not care about DEI at all, and make the 1:1 mean that. Then 1:1 would be >> a shorthand for expressing two rules, one for DE=0, one for DE=1. >> >> If the user does care about DEI, they would either say 1de:1 or 1nd:1, >> depending on what they want the DEI to be. >> >> If you generally agree with this idea, but don't have spare cycles to >> code it up, would you please just make the PCP keys "${prio}de" and >> "${prio}nd"? (Or whatever, but have the syntax reflect the DEI state in >> both cases.) I think I'll be able to scrape a bit of a free time on some >> weekend to add the syntax sugar. > > I think this could be useful and 'de', 'nd' (not-drop-eligible?) is fine Yeah, no-drop. It could also be de/nde perhaps, I have no strong preference here. > by me. However, it is perfectly useable for me in its current form so I > wont object if you can find the time to code this addition. Is there any > reason to add the '${prio}nd' keys upfront? Yes, so that the semantics do not change. Whatever 1:1 means now, that's what it will have to mean basically forever. That's why I'm asking you to change to 1de:1 and 1nd:1, so that the 1:1 syntax remains free.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists