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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:35:08 +0200
From:	Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>
To:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169:  Correct value from speed 10 on
 MII_BMCR

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:33:02 +0100
Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 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:
> 
> Subject line:
> - The 'vNN' part in brackets is supposed to be the reroll-count (see
>   'git format-patch -h' for details), not kernel version. You're
>   supposed to submit your patches for either net or net-next, not a
>   specific kernel version like 3.16.
> - Missing space after the closing bracket.
> - Extra space after 'r8169:'.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Corcodel Marian wrote:
> >  This patch correct value on MII_BMCR register ald value 0
> >  have target on reserved register first 2 bytes from MII_BMCR
> >  speed 10 is flipped value on BMCR_SPEED100
> 
> This is very hard to understand. I *guess* you want to say one should
> not write 0 to MII_BMCR since it overwrites reserved bits, but it's
> really not clear. Don't you know someone who can properly translate
> from Romanian to English?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Cheers, Phil

> This is very hard to understand. I *guess* you want to say one should
> not write 0 to MII_BMCR since it overwrites reserved bits, but it's
> really not clear. Don't you know someone who can properly translate
> from Romanian to English?
>Yes this it.