| To: | torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Linus Torvalds) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:16:32 +0100 (BST) |
| Cc: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ben Greear), hadi@xxxxxxxxxx (jamal), mingo@xxxxxxx (Ingo Molnar), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alexey Kuznetsov), Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Olsson), bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx (Benjamin LaHaise), netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Cox) |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110030920500.9427-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Linus Torvalds" at Oct 03, 2001 09:33:12 AM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> (a) is not a major security issue. If you allow untrusted users full > 100/1000Mbps access to your internal network, you have _other_ > security issues, like packet sniffing etc that are much much MUCH > worse. So the packet flooding thing is very much a corner case, and > claiming that we have a big problem is silly. Not nowdays. 100Mbit pipes to the backbone are routine for web serving in the real world - at least the paying end (aka porn). Alan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, Andreas Dilger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, Ingo Molnar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |