netdev - RE: [net-next 6/6] ixgbe: change the eeprom version reported by ethtool

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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:02:47 -0600
From:	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 6/6] ixgbe: change the eeprom version reported by
 ethtool

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 10:17 AM
>To: Joe Perches
>Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@...emloft.net; Tantilov, Emil S;
>netdev@...r.kernel.org; gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com
>Subject: Re: [net-next 6/6] ixgbe: change the eeprom version reported by
>ethtool
>
>On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 08:57 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 05:21 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> > From: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>> >
>> > Use 32bit value starting at offset 0x2d for displaying the firmware
>> > version in ethtool. This should work for all current ixgbe HW
>> []
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>> []
>> > -	snprintf(firmware_version, sizeof(firmware_version), "%d.%d-%d",
>> > -	         (adapter->eeprom_version & 0xF000) >> 12,
>> > -	         (adapter->eeprom_version & 0x0FF0) >> 4,
>> > -	         adapter->eeprom_version & 0x000F);
>> > +	nvm_track_id = (adapter->eeprom_verh << 16) |
>> > +			adapter->eeprom_verl;
>> > +	snprintf(firmware_version, sizeof(firmware_version), "0x%08x",
>> > +		 nvm_track_id);
>>
>> Is ethtool output like proc output considered an abi
>> that should not be changed?
>
>No-one should make any assumptions about the format of firmware_version
>strings.  However they ought to be consistent with vendor documentation,
>update programs, etc.

The old value was only marginally useful as it was possible to have different 
images with the same version. The 32 bit value shown by this patch is what 
is being used by the FW team to record the revisions of the images.

The words used to hold the 32 bit value are not described in the datasheet
for 82598/9, but will be in X540 once it becomes available and I have requested that this information be added to the 82598/9 docs as well.

Thanks,
Emil

>
>Ben.
>
>--
>Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
>Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
>They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.