linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.1 11/56] mvneta: add forgotten initialization of autonegotiation bits

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]

Message-ID: <559D84FA.5030203@list.ru>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2015 23:15:54 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sebastien Rannou <mxs@...k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.1 11/56] mvneta: add forgotten initialization of
 autonegotiation bits

08.07.2015 22:36, Arnaud Ebalard пишет:
> Hi,
>
> Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> writes:
>
>>>> Another problem was reported:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/8/865
>>>>
>>>> So, while the above patch is correct and fixes what
>>>> it should, the original patch has more problems to deal
>>>> with. Maybe for stable it would be better to just revert
>>>> the whole thing?
>>> No, you will have to fix this in Linus's tree, right?  So I'll take the
>>> patch that you get into there when that happens, I don't want to diverge
>>> from what is in that tree.
>> For Linus tree I am planning a new DT property to explicitly
>> enable the inband status. I don't see any quick fix suitable for
>> -stable, and new DT property will likely not be quickly accepted.
>> If you don't want a revert, then the stable will likely have that
>> regression for quite long, that's the warning.
> I do not think the problem is to have a revert in -stable, it's more
> having in in Linus tree *first* ;-)
>
>> OTOH, the revert will remove the support for my board, so I
>> won't be able to even test it, which is also not perfect.
> ATM, the priority is more on fixing the regressions the initial patch
> caused *for existing boards*. There were at least three boards which got
> hit by first regression during 4.1-rc
That one is fixed, so doesn't count.

>   and a new one on the table now
> that 4.1 is out.
For that we don't know the impact yet.
I asked Sebastien Rannou about what HW he has
connected via sgmii link and why does he use a fixed-link.
If it is just some strange HW that does not generate the
inband status where it should, perhaps it is not such a big
deal to rush reverting it from Linus tree.

>   I understand your reluctance to revert the patch that
> made mvneta work for your custom board but it's unfair for others that
> are hit by the regressions it causes and have to spend time
> bisecting/fixing it.
I am not reluctant for a revert, I in fact _propose_ the
revert for -stable. As for mainline - yes, I'd really rather
just do a proper fix there, as there is probably not a big
deal to wait just for a little longer till the proper fix is discussed.
But since Greg have spoken against the divergence,
I am currently in an undecided state. I guess I'll code the
fix first, then will see. Hope the news will be tomorrow.

> Anyway, if you come w/ a fix, I can commit to test it on the boards I
> have.
Thanks, I'll keep you CCed.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/