linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] igb: add parameter to ignore nvm checksum validation

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: <20190517010330.2wynopuhsqycqzuq@zorba>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 18:03:30 -0700
From:   Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     "Nikunj Kela (nkela)" <nkela@...co.com>,
        "jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] igb: add parameter to ignore nvm checksum validation

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:02:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 5/16/19 12:55 PM, Nikunj Kela (nkela) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/16/19, 12:35 PM, "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> >     On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 23:14 +0000, Nikunj Kela wrote:
> >    >> Some of the broken NICs don't have EEPROM programmed correctly. It
> >    >> results
> >    >> in probe to fail. This change adds a module parameter that can be
> >    >> used to
> >    >> ignore nvm checksum validation.
> >    >> 
> >    >> Cc: xe-linux-external@...co.com
> >    >> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <nkela@...co.com>
> >    >> ---
> >    >>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 28
> >    >> ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >    >>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >     
> >     >NAK for two reasons.  First, module parameters are not desirable
> >     >because their individual to one driver and a global solution should be
> >     >found so that all networking device drivers can use the solution.  This
> >     >will keep the interface to change/setup/modify networking drivers
> >     >consistent for all drivers.
> > 
> >     
> >     >Second and more importantly, if your NIC is broken, fix it.  Do not try
> >     >and create a software workaround so that you can continue to use a
> >     >broken NIC.  There are methods/tools available to properly reprogram
> >     >the EEPROM on a NIC, which is the right solution for your issue.
> > 
> > I am proposing this as a debug parameter. Obviously, we need to fix EEPROM but this helps us continuing the development while manufacturing fixes NIC.
> 
> Then why even bother with sending this upstream?

It seems rather drastic to disable the entire driver because the checksum
doesn't match. It really should be a warning, even a big warning, to let people
know something is wrong, but disabling the whole driver doesn't make sense.

Daniel