netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/4] MTU changes and other fixes

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]

Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:33:14 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
	rolf.neugebauer@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/4] MTU changes and other fixes

From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:49:28 +0000

> I know this is not what you asked for but, since we are using FW
> commands to disable/enable RX, even if we allocate all required
> resources before freeing old ones we still cannot guarantee that
> the reenabling operation will not fail.  Should we refuse to do
> MTU changes while the interface is running altogether?

If you issue the MTU change command and it fails, then you're still
configured at the old MTU.  There should therefore be no problem
rewinding in that case.

> All drivers I've seen ...

Bad practice in other drivers should be ignored, not copied.