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  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:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:04:37 +0100
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     David Chen <david0813@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kai.heng.feng@...onical.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        david.chen7@...l.com, mario.limonciello@...l.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, zhongjiang@...wei.com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, hayeswang@...ltek.com, jslaby@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RTL8153-BD is used in Dell DA300 type-C dongle. It
 should be added to the whitelist of devices to activate MAC address pass
 through.

On Mo, 2019-02-18 at 11:48 +0800, David Chen wrote:
> From: David Chen <david.chen7@...l.com>
> 
> Per confirming with Realtek all devices containing RTL8153-BD should
> activate MAC pass through and there won't use pass through bit on efuse
> like in RTL8153-AD.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Chen <david.chen7@...l.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/usb/r8152.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/r8152.c b/drivers/net/usb/r8152.c
> index ada6baf8847a..86c8c64fbb0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/usb/r8152.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/r8152.c
> @@ -1179,7 +1179,7 @@ static int vendor_mac_passthru_addr_read(struct r8152 *tp, struct sockaddr *sa)
>  	} else {
>  		/* test for RTL8153-BND and RTL8153-BD */
>  		ocp_data = ocp_read_byte(tp, MCU_TYPE_USB, USB_MISC_1);
> -		if ((ocp_data & BND_MASK) == 0 && (ocp_data & BD_MASK)) {
> +		if ((ocp_data & BND_MASK) == 0 && (ocp_data & BD_MASK) == 0) {

You are inverting the second half of the test. How can this possibly be
right? Had you dropped it, I would understand. But this? Are you sure?

	Regards
		Oliver

Powered by blists - more mailing lists