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 13:55:34 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: genphy_read_status() vs. 1000bT Pause capability

On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 13:28 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ben
> > 
> > It is worth reading Documentation/networking/phy.txt
> > 
> > The MAC should set SUPPORTED_Pause and SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause if the MAC
> > supports these features. The PHY will then negotiate them.
> 
Haha ! The OpenBMC kernel is still at 4.7 which was still saying you
should only clear bits in there :-) I think that's what I initially
read.

Thanks for the pointer.

Doesn't fix my other problem with Pause in 1000bT land. Do you know if
that way of reflecting the pause capability by hijacking the old
LPA bits is widely implemented enough that we should put it in
genphy_read_status() ?

Cheers,
Ben.