netdev - RE: [PATCH net 5/7] bnx2x: do not rollback VF MAC/VLAN filters we did not configure

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:   Sun, 5 Mar 2017 10:13:19 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "Elior, Ariel" <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net 5/7] bnx2x: do not rollback VF MAC/VLAN filters we did
 not configure

> On failure to configure a VF MAC/VLAN filter we should not attempt to
> rollback filters that we failed to configure with -EEXIST.

Is this theoretical or did you actually manage to hit it?
If so, did it involve non-linux VFs?

Asking as linux VFs don't actually send multiple vlan/umac configurations
Via same request, and with a single filter per-message you're not expected
to ever do rollback.