netdev - Re: Correct interpretation of VF link-state=auto

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:12:25 +0200
From:   Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Edward Harold Cree <ecree@...inx.com>,
        Dinan Gunawardena <dinang@...inx.com>,
        Pablo Cascon <pabloc@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: Correct interpretation of VF link-state=auto

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> Like all legacy SR-IOV networking the correct thing to do here is clear
> as mud. I'd go for the link status of the PF netdev. If the netdev
> cannot pass traffic (either for administrative or physical link reasons)
> then VFs shouldn't talk either. But as I said, every vendor will have their
> own interpretation, and different users may expect different things...

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:10 PM Keller, Jacob E
<jacob.e.keller@...el.com> wrote:
> I like this interpretation too.. but I agree that it's unfortunately confusing and each vendor has done something different.. :(

Thanks Jakub and Keller, at least now it's clear that it's not clear :P

Good enough info to move forward, for me.
-- 
Íñigo Huguet