From: Cong Wang
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:40:41 -0800
> A vlan device with vid 0 is allow to creat by not able to be fully
> cleaned up by unregister_vlan_dev() which checks for vlan_id!=0.
>
> Also, VLAN 0 is probably not a valid number and it is kinda
> "reserved"
On 01/10/2018 01:06 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
> wrote:
>> On 01/10/2018 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
>>> wrote:
[snip]>> I'm not
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just for reference - this is identical to the first part of:
On 01/10/2018 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
> wrote:
>>
>> Just for reference - this is identical to the first part of:
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/252891/
>>
>> I knew this looked familiar. :-)
>>
>
>
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
wrote:
>
> Just for reference - this is identical to the first part of:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/252891/
>
> I knew this looked familiar. :-)
>
Yeah, except bonding is not even involved. Unless I
On 09/01/18 23:40, Cong Wang wrote:
> A vlan device with vid 0 is allow to creat by not able to be fully
> cleaned up by unregister_vlan_dev() which checks for vlan_id!=0.
>
> Also, VLAN 0 is probably not a valid number and it is kinda
> "reserved" for HW accelerating devices, but it is probably
A vlan device with vid 0 is allow to creat by not able to be fully
cleaned up by unregister_vlan_dev() which checks for vlan_id!=0.
Also, VLAN 0 is probably not a valid number and it is kinda
"reserved" for HW accelerating devices, but it is probably too
late to reject it from creation even if