netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:53:25 +0100
From:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
Cc:	Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169:  Correct value from speed 10 on
 MII_BMCR

Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> :
[...]
> Your patch submissions are getting better, also good to see you're
> finally using git-send-email. A few things need to be corrected though:
> 

#define BMCR_RESV               0x003f  /* Unused...                   */
#define BMCR_SPEED1000          0x0040  /* MSB of Speed (1000)         */
#define BMCR_CTST               0x0080  /* Collision test              */
#define BMCR_FULLDPLX           0x0100  /* Full duplex                 */
#define BMCR_ANRESTART          0x0200  /* Auto negotiation restart    */
#define BMCR_ISOLATE            0x0400  /* Isolate data paths from MII */
#define BMCR_PDOWN              0x0800  /* Enable low power state      */
#define BMCR_ANENABLE           0x1000  /* Enable auto negotiation     */
#define BMCR_SPEED100           0x2000  /* Select 100Mbps              */
#define BMCR_LOOPBACK           0x4000  /* TXD loopback bits           */

BMCR_SPEED100 apart, *all* these bits are now set.

It does not make much sense.

> Also detailed instructions on how to trigger the problem you are fixing
> for would be good. In detail: Which specific hardware was used, in which
> situation did the problem occur, how did it behave in that situation and
> what was the expected behaviour?

Been there. Such requests are usually left unanswered. :o(

Btw, this stuff targets 3.16 (...) and net-next is still closed.

-- 
Ueimor