netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] sched: sch_cake: add bounds checks to host bulk flow fairness counts

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: <87frlshrnh.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:35:14 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
 Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 syzbot+f63600d288bfb7057424@...kaller.appspotmail.com, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, cake@...ts.bufferbloat.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] sched: sch_cake: add bounds checks to host bulk
 flow fairness counts

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:08:14 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> I guess I should have mentioned in the commit message that this was
>> >> deliberate. Since it seems you'll be editing that anyway (cf the above),
>> >> how about adding a paragraph like:
>> >> 
>> >>  As part of this change, the flow quantum calculation is consolidated
>> >>  into a helper function, which means that the dithering applied to the
>> >>  host load scaling is now applied both in the DRR rotation and when a
>> >>  sparse flow's quantum is first initiated. The only user-visible effect
>> >>  of this is that the maximum packet size that can be sent while a flow
>> >>  stays sparse will now vary with +/- one byte in some cases. This should
>> >>  not make a noticeable difference in practice, and thus it's not worth
>> >>  complicating the code to preserve the old behaviour.  
>> >
>> > It's in Jakub's hands now, possibly he could prefer a repost to reduce
>> > the maintainer's overhead.  
>> 
>> Alright, sure, I'll respin :)
>
> Hold on, I'll do it :)

Crossed streams, but thanks! :)

-Toke