linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] fixed_phy: handle link-down case

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:	Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:14:10 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sebastien Rannou <mxs@...k.org>,
	Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>,
	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fixed_phy: handle link-down case

10.07.2015 23:44, Florian Fainelli пишет:
> On 10/07/15 09:41, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> Currently fixed_phy driver recognizes only the link-up state.
>> This simple patch adds an implementation of link-down state.
>> The actual change is 1-line, the rest is an indentation.
> It is not clear to me how this is useful, if you have a link_update
> callback manipulating the link state, the fixed PHY driver returns
> appropriate MII_BMSR values and always re-initializes everything.
It returns the appropriate values only for link status (when its down),
but it still returns speed, duplex etc as if the link is up. I had hard
times finding the relevant specs, but from what I have googled,
when link is down, the speed/duplex/etc status fields should _also_
be zero, which is what my patch does.
What is more important is that fixed_phy_add() would return
-EINVAL if you didn't specify speed while the link is down.
This is an absolute must-fix, or I will have to add an arbitrary
speed value again, on which you already objected.

> Is this meant to be some sort of optimization? If so, you could just
> avoid the re-intendation completely and do a goto instead?
Oh, c'mon... Adding goto just to keep the _patch_ smaller?
(not smaller code, just a smaller patch)
Well, this is certainly something that can be done, feel free
to request that explicitly and I'll release v3 next week.
--
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/