netdev - Re: [net] e1000e: keep VLAN interfaces functional after rxvlan off

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:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:57 -0400
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com, jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net] e1000e: keep VLAN interfaces functional after rxvlan off

David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Kirsher<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:41:31 -0700
>
>> From: Jarod Wilson<jarod@...hat.com>
>>
>> I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a VLAN interface is
>> set up on top of it:
>>
>> $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
>> $ ip link set ens1f0 up
>> $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
>> $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
>>
>> At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
>> However, if I do the following:
>>
>> $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
>>
>> Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
>> again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's a
>> lack of software VLAN stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
>> work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
>> active VLANs (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
>> interface.
>>
>> Also slipped a related-ish fix to the kerneldoc text for
>> e1000e_vlan_strip_disable here...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson<jarod@...hat.com>
>> Tested-by: Aaron Brown<aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>
> Applied, thanks.

Hm.. There was actually a v2 patch that followed this one that fixed the 
problem slightly differently and slightly better, I think.

http://marc.info/?l=intel-wired-lan&m=146551652424417&w=2

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com