netdev - Re: [PATCH] vlan: propogate MTU changes

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48EA9CCC.2050505@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:18:36 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan: propogate MTU changes

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
> 
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. But the question when to do automatic adjustments remains.
>>
>>
>> A matter of interpretation of the principle of least surprise right? 
>> Which is less surprising - that a VLAN's MTU drops to match that of 
>> the physical interface or that some traffic on the VLAN stops when the 
>> physical interface's MTU drops?
> 
> 
> The traffic actually shouldn't stop since the MTU isn't enforced by
> the lower layers and also usually not by the driver. So I feel unable
> to make a policy decision when both views don't seem unreasonable.
> Especially given the fact that the "more suprising" behaviour so far
> has been our default.

Does changing the MTU on a physical interface not change the size frame 
the NIC itself will be willing to accept?

rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html