| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <50524419.4080404@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:37:45 +0200 From: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior Le 13/09/2012 22:31, David Miller a écrit : > From: Erwan Velu<erwanaliasr1@...il.com> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:21:15 +0200 > >> That lever for me two points : >> - why is this timeout setup for so long ? Even with a spantree >> - configuration, not having a carrier for 2mn is *waow* ... Does a 30sec >> - could not be enough ? What is the need of waiting so long time ? > I've seen PHY/switch/hub combinations that take longer than 30 seconds > to fully negotiate the link. > > There is really no upper limit to the link speed/duplex/etc. > negoatiation process. > > Even if the actual negoatiation protocol had an upper limit on > negoatiation time, hardware implementations do things like try > sampling the quality of the cable signal and may choose to > down-rev the advertised features and restart the negoatiation. Ok but shouldn't we display some message to the user trying to explain why the kernel is stopped and perfectly silent during its booting process ? 2 minutes, that's a pretty long time with an almost frozen kernel isn't it ? -- 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