netdev - Re: regression: UFO removal breaks kvm live migration

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]

Message-Id: <20171108.203231.310648804772108001.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:32:31 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jasowang@...hat.com
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, mkubecek@...e.cz,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, vyasevic@...hat.com
Subject: Re: regression: UFO removal breaks kvm live migration

From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:25:48 +0900

> On 2017年11月08日 17:08, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> That won't help in the short term. I'm still reading up to see if
>> there are
>> any other options besides reimplement or advertise-but-drop, such as
>> an implicit trigger that would make the guest renegotiate. It's
>> unlikely, but
>> worth a look..
> 
> Yes, this looks hard. And even if we can manage to do this, it looks
> an overkill since it will impact all guest after migration.

Like Willem I would much prefer "advertise-but-drop" if it works.

In the long term feature renegotiation triggers are a must.

There is no way for us to remove features otherwise.  In my opinion
this will even make migrations more powerful.