Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Ivo Vachkov <ivo.vachkov@gmail.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056 Message-ID: <20110302215921.N13400@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <xeiaei7lzwg6.fsf@kobe.laptop> References: <AANLkTi=rF%2BCYiNG7PurPtrwn-AMT9cYEe90epGAJDwDq@mail.gmail.com> <4D411CC6.1090202@gont.com.ar> <AANLkTinvg5tft8xockuuV9g5QYd36ko9qO4YCvy5bkJ1@mail.gmail.com> <4D431258.8040704@FreeBSD.org> <xeiaei7lzwg6.fsf@kobe.laptop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi,
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank
>> you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's
>> request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a
>> chance to say so). :)
>
> Thanks from me too.
>
>> My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2
>> problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is
>> that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not
>> familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if
>> the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an
>> anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas
>> of confusion).
>>
>> So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the
>> existing:
>>
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized
>>
>> How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest
>> that the second sysctl be named
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do
>> sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't
>> quibble on that. :)
>
> It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the
> sysctls to something human-friendly. It's always bad enough to go
> through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234
> means. It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago
> and now it's called RFC 54321.
has anything of that ever happened and led to an updated patch again?
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110302215921.N13400>