netdev - Re: ixgbe: How to do this without a module parameter?

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: <YXdMrL2ZEW5c+adB@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 02:32:44 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Robert Schlabbach <Robert.Schlabbach@....net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ixgbe: How to do this without a module parameter?

> So I realize using ethtool is a viable solution after all and the module
> parameter is not needed. I'd still wish the ixgbe driver would default to full
> functionality and require the users with the "bad" switches in their networks
> to employ ethtool to cripple its function, but I suppose that'd be tough to
> sell to Intel...

Maybe, maybe not. Quoting the above message:

> This is the first time I've heard of anyone asking for 2.5G or 5G
> outside of the telecom space, so we went with the option of changing
> the default.

NBASE-T is no longer just telecom space. It is slowly becoming more
and more popular in general deployment.

At some point, there will be more standard conforming switches than
broken switches, and then it would make sense to enable the higher
speeds by default. Especially when everybody else is doing
NBASE-T. You see a lot of ARM SoCs with such ports, etc.

	 Andrew