netdev - Re: Link modes representation in phylib

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, 19 Jun 2018 11:30:53 +0200
From:   Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: Link modes representation in phylib

Hello Andrew,

Thanks for your feedback !

>> I'm currently working on adding support for 2.5GBaseT on some Marvell
>> PHYs (the marvell10g family, including the 88X3310).
>> 
>> However, phylib doesn't quite support these modes yet. Its stores the
>> different supported and advertised modes in u32 fields, which can't
>> contain the relevant values for 2500BaseT mode (and all other modes that
>> come after the 31st one).  
>
>Hi Maxime
>
>Did you look at phylink? I think it already gets this right.  It could
>be, any MAC which needs to use > bit 31 should use phylink, not
>phylib.

Indeed, drivers that use phylink dont directly access these u32 fields.

>That narrows the problem down to just the PHY drivers. We might be
>able to mass convert those. Or maybe we can consider just doing some
>conversion work on PHYs which support > 1Gbps?

I think that we can consider converting only the concerned PHYs for the
moment.

What I propose is that we add 3 link_mode fields in phy_device, and keep
the legacy fields for now. It would be up to the driver to fill the new
"supported" field in config_init, kind of like what's done in the
marvell10g driver.

There already are phy_ethtool_ksettings_{g|s}et accessors, that are
used by phylink so that would easily integrate with the above solution
of only supporting phylink for these modes.

That would involve a bit of info duplication, but I think that would
allow for a smooth transition to a newer representation.

Would that be acceptable ?

Thanks,

Maxime