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  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]
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] xen-netback: Changes around carrier

From: Zoltan Kiss <>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 17:49:37 +0100

> David Vrabel pointed out an important question in a reply to the
> previous version of this series: this patch deschedule NAPI if the
> carrier goes down. The backend doesn't receive packets from the
> guest. DavidVr and others said we shouldn't do this, the guest should
> be able to transmit even if it's not able/willing to receive. Other
> drivers doesn't deschedule NAPI at carrier off as well, however the
> "carrier off" information comes from the hardware, not from an
> untrusted guest who is not posting buffers on the receive ring.
> I don't have any good argument why I did it the current way, other
> than a hunch that it feels more natural.
> David, do you have an opinion on that?

Unless you have a strong reason for doing so, I don't think disabling
receives when the TX path backs up is necessary.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists