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  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:   Wed, 22 May 2019 13:59:16 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Ulrich Hecht <uli@...nd.eu>,
        Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, magnus.damm@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ravb: implement MTU change while device is up

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 02:09:54PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > > > > >    How about the code below instead?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 	if (netif_running(ndev))
> > > > > > > 		ravb_close(ndev);
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  	ndev->mtu = new_mtu;
> > > > > > > 	netdev_update_features(ndev);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there a need to call netdev_update_features() even if the if is not 
> > > > > > running?
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my testing, it didn't seem so.
> > > > 
> > > > That may be because your testing doesn't cover cases where it would make
> > > > any difference.
> > > 
> > > Cases other than changing the MTU while the device is up?
> > 
> > I was thinking of cases where listeners are registered for the
> > notifier that netdev_update_features() triggers.
> 
> Where are we here? Is this a blocker?

I don't think this is a blocker but I would lean towards leaving
netdev_update_features() in unless we are certain its not needed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists