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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:35 +0900 From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> Subject: bonding: propagation of offload settings Hi, I am wondering what the desired behaviour for the propagating of offload settings between master and slaves when the settings are modified using ethtool. I have observed the following (using Linus' latest tree, 2.6.36+) #1 Disabling gro on a slave device propagates to the master but not other slaves bond1: generic-receive-offload: on eth1: generic-receive-offload: on eth4: generic-receive-offload: on # ethtool -K eth1 gro off bond1: generic-receive-offload: off eth1: generic-receive-offload: on eth4: generic-receive-offload: off This seems to occur regardless of if the slave is the active slave or not. #2 No other propagation of settings occurs It seems to me that from a user point of view it may make more sense to: a) propagate settings from the master to the slaves and; b) possibly disallow setting the slaves directly -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists