Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:14:01 -0800 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Ivo Vachkov <ivo.vachkov@gmail.com>, bz@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056 Message-ID: <xeiaei7lzwg6.fsf@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <4D431258.8040704@FreeBSD.org> (Doug Barton's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800") References: <AANLkTi=rF%2BCYiNG7PurPtrwn-AMT9cYEe90epGAJDwDq@mail.gmail.com> <4D411CC6.1090202@gont.com.ar> <AANLkTinvg5tft8xockuuV9g5QYd36ko9qO4YCvy5bkJ1@mail.gmail.com> <4D431258.8040704@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xeiaei7lzwg6.fsf>