netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] nfp: separate the port's upper state with lower phy state

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: <20230329210048.0054e01b@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 21:00:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
Cc:     Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] nfp: separate the port's upper state with
 lower phy state

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 03:33:30 +0000 Yinjun Zhang wrote:
> > Why?  
> 
> I have to say most of other vendors behave like this. It's more practical
> and required by users.

That's not really a practical explanation. Why does anyone want traffic
to flow thru a downed port. Don't down the port, if you want it to be
up, I'd think.

This patch is very unlikely to be accepted upstream.
Custom knobs to do weird things are really not our favorite.