netdev - Re: bonding: propagation of offload settings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20101124.122736.200378471.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:27:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	horms@...ge.net.au
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: bonding: propagation of offload settings

From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:35 +0900

> 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

Yeah, good question.

Propagation from master to slave(s) would have difficult semantics.
If any of the slave changes fail (f.e. unsupported feature or memory
allocation failure) we'd have to unwind all of the slaves which did
accept the change without error.

What if the unwind operation fails, due to lack of resources?  A lot
of state would thus need to be tracked to support this reasonably.

However we pretty much have to respect whatever changes get made
directly to the slaves, since the master must at all times claim
support for only the lowest common denominator, feature wise, amongst
that master's slaves.
--
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