netdev - Re: genphy_read_status() vs. 1000bT Pause capability

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:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:19:01 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: genphy_read_status() vs. 1000bT Pause capability

On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 16:17 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hence my question ... how "standard" is the re-use of the LPA bits
> for these alternate meanings in 1000bT and should we update genphy
> to perform that decoding ?

And btw, I'm happy to provide patches if we agree on the approach :-)

Cheers,
Ben.