At 2024-01-19 15:08:36 +0100, mba...@gmx.net wrote: > > I wonder whether maybe auth_delay.max_seconds should either be renamed > to auth_delay.exponential_backoff_max_seconds (but then it is rather > long) in order to make it clearer it only applies in that context or > alternatively just apply to auth_delay.milliseconds as well (though > that would be somewhat weird).
I think it's OK as-is. The description/docs are pretty clear. > I wonder though whether this might be a useful message to have at some > more standard level like INFO? I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I suspect anyone who is annoyed enough by repeated authentication failures to use auth_delay will also be happy to have less noise in the logs about it. > You mean something like "after 5 minutes, reset the delay to 0 again"? > I agree that this would probably be useful, but would also make the > change more complex. Yes, that's the kind of thing I meant. I agree that it would make this patch more complex, and I don't think it's necessary to implement. However, since it's a feature that seems to go hand-in-hand with exponential backoff in general, it _may_ be good to mention in the docs that the sleep time for a host is reset only by successful authentication, not by any timeout. Not sure. > What I had in mind is that admins would lower auth_delay.milliseconds to > something like 100 or 125 when exponential_backoff is on Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining. Your new v3 patch looks fine to me. I'm marking it as ready for committer. -- Abhijit
