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:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:14:51 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <>
To:     si-wei liu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v5] failover: allow name change on IFF_UP slave

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:23:29 -0700
si-wei liu <> wrote:

> On 4/2/2019 2:53 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon,  1 Apr 2019 19:04:53 -0400
> > Si-Wei Liu <> wrote:
> >  
> >> +	if (dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
> >> +	    likely(!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE)))  
> > Why is property limited to failover slave, it would make sense for netvsc
> > as well. Why not make it a flag like live address change?  
> Well, netvsc today is still taking the delayed approach meaning that it 
> is incompatible yet with this live name change flag if need be. ;-)
> I thought Sridhar did not like to introduce an additional 
> IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag given that failover slave is the only consumer 
> for the time being. Even though I can get it back, patch is needed for 
> netvsc to remove the VF takeover delay IMHO.
> Sridhar, what do you think we revive the IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag which 
> allows netvsc to be used later on? Or maybe, IFF_LIVE_RENAME_OK for a 
> better name?
> -Siwei

there is no reason its use should be restricted to SLAVE devices.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists