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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220223093749.6b33345a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:37:49 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: vlan: allow vlan device MTU change follow real device from smaller to bigger On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:58:36 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 08:03:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > I meant > > > > ip link set dev vlan0 mtu-policy blah > > > > but also > > > > ip link set dev bond0 mtu-policy blah > > > > and > > > > ip link set dev macsec0 mtu-policy blah2 > > ip link set dev vxlan0 mtu-policy blah2 > > > > etc. > > Unless I'm missing something, that looks very much like what I proposed > (these are all ARPHRD_ETHER devices). It's just a bit unclear whether > "ip link set dev vlan0 mtu-policy blah" applies to vlan0 or to the vlans > that might be stacked on top of it (given your other examples, I assume > it's the later). No, sorry I thought it would be clear, we need that neuralink ;) It applies to the device on which it's configured. What I mean is that bond, macsec, mpls etc have the same "should it follow the MTU of the lower device" problem, it's not vlan specific. Or am I wrong about that? > > To be honest I'm still not clear if this is a real problem. > > The patch does not specify what the use case is. > > It's probably not a problem as long as we keep sane behaviour by > default. Then we can let admins opt in for something more complex or > loosely defined. What I meant was - does anyone actually flip the MTU of their interfaces back and forth while the system is running. Maybe people do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists