netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Add support for device specific address syncing

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: <20140516.150115.1106293449904617860.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2014 15:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
	jpirko@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Add support for device specific address
 syncing

From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:47:57 -0700

> I suppose I should break up the loop below though.  It might be better
> to do all of the usnync operations first before the sync in the case of
> a interface with a limited number of unicast of multicast filters.
 ...
> My primary use case for this is to simplify mailbox operations between
> two entities such as a PF and VF.  With this the VF only needs to send a
> request for new addresses instead of having to send the entire list via
> the mailbox.  The issue most likely to cause an error is a mailbox error
> which I admit does have some of its own error recovery in the case of a
> message timeout.

I definitely agree that we should be doing the unsync()'s first.

>From a quality of implementation standpoint, the promisc mode needs
should be determined in both sync() and unsync().
--
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