netdev - Re: [net-next patch v2] bnx2x: Add run-time CNIC support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20120710.074047.1501226985962277049.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eilong@...adcom.com
Cc:	meravs@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dmitry@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [net-next patch v2] bnx2x: Add run-time CNIC support

From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:38:05 +0300

> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 06:06 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> Why can't you turn CNIC off at the start, and if a CNIC user actually
>> arrives and is activated, reset the entire chip and put it into CNIC
>> mode?
> 
> Since the CNIC mode should not change under traffic, and since it is a
> shared HW attribute, we need to consider a scenario on which one
> interface is loaded and running in L2 only mode, and then on another
> interface the CNIC is required, but enabling it will affect the first
> interface that is already running.

If CNIC is off, the only effect for other users of the chips is
perhaps some dropped packets.  This is acceptable.

That is why I said you should only go from CNIC off to CNIC on,
and never the other way around.

I have yet to see a justification why you cannot implement this
properly, and my patience is completely exhausted on this issue.
--
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