netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V6 09/13] devlink: Add 'keep_link

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: <aLc_PWj1OKkjrZ0e@x130>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:02:21 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V6 09/13] devlink: Add 'keep_link_up' generic
 devlink device param

On 28 Aug 15:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 13:09:50 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> >> I don't see anything missing in the definition of this parameter
>> >> 'keep_link_up' it is pretty much self-explanatory, for legacy reasons the
>> >> netdev controls the underlying physical link state. But this is not
>> >> true anymore for complex setups (multi-host, DPU, etc..).
>> >
>> >The policy can be more complex than "keep_link_up"
>> >Look around the tree and search the ML archives please.
>>
>> Sorry for replying late, had to work on other stuff and was waiting
>> internally for a question I had to ask about this, only recently got the
>> answer.
>>
>> I get your point, but I am not trying to implement any link policy
>> or eth link specification tunables. For me and maybe other vendors
>> this knob makes sense, and Important for the usecase I described.
>
>I think I was alluding to making the link stay up dependent on presence
>of BMC / management engine and or some NIC-internal agents. So to give
>a trivial example the policy could be:
> - force down
> - leave up if BMC present
> - force up
>I don't recall prior discussions TBH so doing more research will be
>necessary..

Sounds good will drop this patch and re-post. Will suggest the policy to
our Arch people to see if FW can adapt.

Thanks,
Saeed.