netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] xen-netback: Changes around carrier handling

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]

Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	zoltan.kiss@...rix.com
Cc:	wei.liu2@...rix.com, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com,
	david.vrabel@...rix.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] xen-netback: Changes around carrier
 handling

From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html