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: <DM6PR13MB3705CA9B36F8B14C4F5E961BFC8E9@DM6PR13MB3705.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 05:55:22 +0000
From:   Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 Wed, 29 Mar 2023 21:00:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

Here it means down in netdev layer, not physical layer down. We don't
expect the host to talk outside through a downed port, only allow the
VMs that used VFs to talk(it depends on the VF netdev state).

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

As I said, it's not so custom, but rather very common.