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:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:21:16 +0100
From:   Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Schreiber <tschreibe@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: sfp: add workaround for Realtek RTL8672 and
 RTL9601C chips

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 19:45:49 +0000
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:

> I think you're not reading the code very well. It checks for bytes at
> offset 1..blocksize-1, blocksize+1..2*blocksize-1, etc are zero. It
> does _not_ check that byte 0 or the byte at N*blocksize is zero - these
> bytes are skipped. In other words, the first byte of each transfer can
> be any value. The other bytes of the _entire_ ID must be zero.

Wouldn't it be better, instead of checking if 1..blocksize-1 are zero,
to check whether reading byte by byte returns the same as reading 16
bytes whole?

Marek

Powered by blists - more mailing lists