netdev - [PATCH net 2/4] sfp: improve RX

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:59:16 +0000
From:   Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net 2/4] sfp: improve RX_LOS handling

There are two bits in the option word for the RX_LOS signal.  One
reports that the RX_LOS signal is active high, the other reports that
it is active low.  When both or neither are set, the result is not
well defined in the specification.

Rather than assuming that neither set means normal RX_LOS, take this
as meaning no RX_LOS signal available, thereby ignoring the signal.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
index 3355141688a6..c1aab6a81ce9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
@@ -351,12 +351,13 @@ static void sfp_sm_link_check_los(struct sfp *sfp)
 {
 	unsigned int los = sfp->state & SFP_F_LOS;
 
-	/* FIXME: what if neither SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED nor
-	 * SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL are set?  For now, we assume
-	 * the same as SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL set.
+	/* If neither SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED nor SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL
+	 * are set, we assume that no LOS signal is available.
 	 */
 	if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED))
 		los ^= SFP_F_LOS;
+	else if (!(sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL)))
+		los = 0;
 
 	if (los)
 		sfp_sm_next(sfp, SFP_S_WAIT_LOS, 0);
@@ -364,6 +365,22 @@ static void sfp_sm_link_check_los(struct sfp *sfp)
 		sfp_sm_link_up(sfp);
 }
 
+static bool sfp_los_event_active(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
+{
+	return (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) &&
+		event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW) ||
+	       (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL) &&
+		event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH);
+}
+
+static bool sfp_los_event_inactive(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
+{
+	return (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) &&
+		event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH) ||
+	       (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL) &&
+		event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW);
+}
+
 static void sfp_sm_fault(struct sfp *sfp, bool warn)
 {
 	if (sfp->sm_retries && !--sfp->sm_retries) {
@@ -581,10 +598,7 @@ static void sfp_sm_event(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
 	case SFP_S_WAIT_LOS:
 		if (event == SFP_E_TX_FAULT)
 			sfp_sm_fault(sfp, true);
-		else if (event ==
-			 (sfp->id.ext.options &
-			  cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) ?
-			  SFP_E_LOS_HIGH : SFP_E_LOS_LOW))
+		else if (sfp_los_event_inactive(sfp, event))
 			sfp_sm_link_up(sfp);
 		break;
 
@@ -592,10 +606,7 @@ static void sfp_sm_event(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
 		if (event == SFP_E_TX_FAULT) {
 			sfp_sm_link_down(sfp);
 			sfp_sm_fault(sfp, true);
-		} else if (event ==
-			   (sfp->id.ext.options &
-			    cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) ?
-			    SFP_E_LOS_LOW : SFP_E_LOS_HIGH)) {
+		} else if (sfp_los_event_active(sfp, event)) {
 			sfp_sm_link_down(sfp);
 			sfp_sm_next(sfp, SFP_S_WAIT_LOS, 0);
 		}
-- 
2.7.4