linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/11] net: phy: Don't report success if devices weren't found

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: <20200525210751.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 22:07:51 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, andrew@...n.ch,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        madalin.bucur@....nxp.com, calvin.johnson@....nxp.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/11] net: phy: Don't report success if devices weren't
 found

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > So, I think you're going to have to add a work-around to ignore bit 0,
> > which brings up the question whether this is worth it or not.
> 
> It does ignore bit 0, it gets turned into the C22 regs flag, and
> cleared/ignored in the remainder of the code (do to MMD loop indexes
> starting at 1).

However, I've already pointed out that that isn't the case in a
number of functions that I listed in another email, and I suspect
was glossed over.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up