netdev - Re: [RFC] HW TX Rate Limiting Driver API

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240424165754.1ba023ba@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:57:54 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko
 <jiri@...nulli.us>, Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>, Sridhar
 Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] HW TX Rate Limiting Driver API

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:25:37 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> I would say just bw_min = 0, all others fields are ignored in such
> case. But not very relevant since...

> ... my understanding is that you have strong preference over the
> 'attach points' variant.
> 
> I think in the end is mostly a matter of clearly define
> expectation/behavior and initial status. 

Agreed, no strong preference but also no strong argument either way?

Maybe my main worry was that we have 4 "lookup modes" if every one
of them have fake nodes that's a bit messy. With fewer modes it's more
palatable.

And IIUC TC uses the magic encoding method, so that's a precedent.