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  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]
Date:	Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:12:47 -0700
From:	Casey Leedom <>
To:	Stefan Assmann <>
Cc:	netdev <>,,
	"Duyck, Alexander H" <>,,,
	Andy Gospodarek <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] igbvf: avoid name clash between PF and VF

| From: Stefan Assmann <>
| Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:37 pm
| You're correct, the problem shouldn't occur with cxgb4vf and therefore
| this change shouldn't be necessary. However we might consider a
| consistent naming scheme for VFs in all drivers. But I don't have a
| strong opinion about this, either way would be fine by me.

  Sorry, I hadn't meant to imply any criticism of your naming proposal.  I was 
just trying to clarify when/where such a scheme might be necessary.

  On the naming proposal itself, it strikes me that the most common use of PCI-E 
SR-IOV Virtual Functions will be to export them to KVM Virtual Machines via PCI 
"Pass Through."  So there shouldn't be any naming conflict there, right?  Or is 
it the same scenario you described before: that the VF NIC device might be found 
before the normal "eth0", etc. withing the Virtual Machine?

  In any case, I don't really have any feelings one way or the other about 
interface naming.  As I mentioned before, the cxgb4vf driver will end up with 
persistent MAC addresses so all the normal interface management stuff will work 
normally (naming, DHCP, etc.)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists