netdev - Re: the future of ethtool

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: <20101116061746.GC24292@canuck.infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:17:46 -0500
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: the future of ethtool

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:02:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> It isn't sufficient.  You can still get into unwindable failures.
> 
> Earlier operations can consume fixed resources like TCAM filter
> slots or rx/tx queues, making a subsequent operation in the
> sequence fail.
> 
> A validate/commit scheme cannot detect this effectively.

I agree, there are many more scenarios where it would not work
reliably. It would have ensured that all provided values are
within range boundries and that all requested operations are in
fact supported. Since I have disregarded the idea, I does not
matter much anymore.
--
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