netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next] net: fec: Use a proper ID allocation scheme

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:51:11 +0000
From:   Andy Duan <fugang.duan@....com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next] net: fec: Use a proper ID allocation
 scheme

From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:49 PM
> From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:36:51 -0300
> 
> > Instead of using such poor mechanism for counting the network
> > interfaces IDs, use a proper allocation scheme, such as IDR.
> >
> > This fixes the network behavior after unbind/bind.
> 
> What about:
> 
> 1) unbind fec0
> 2) unbind fec1
> 3) bind fec0
> 
> It doesn't work even with the IDR scheme.

Not only such case, instance#A (maybe fec0 or fec1) depends on instance#B (maybe fec1 or fec0),
Unbind instance#B firstly has problem.
Bind instance#A firstly also has problem.