linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: standardize init jam tables

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:28:05 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Lorenzo Carletti <lorenzo.carletti98@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: standardize init jam tables

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0100, Lorenzo Carletti wrote:
> > And did you manage to find out what these tables actually do?
>
> I was unable to do so. I was looking for Intel 8051 instructions in them:
> I created a small piece of code that generates an hypotetical
> registers space in which the tables are then jammed, but I didn't
> find anything.
> It's clear that some of the values of the tables are configuration
> parameters for stuff like the bandwidth, but that's the extent of what
> I was able to understand... So not that much.
>
> > Why? What difference does it make?
>
> So, allow me to explain. The kernel jams every "i + 1" value in the array
> tables into the registers at " i", and then increments "i" by 2.
> These can be seen as [n][2] matrixes, just like the ethernet one.
> Having the arrays converted to matrixes can help visualize which
> value is jammed where, or at least that's how I feel like it is.
> I know it's not a big change...

Got it, thanks. It is better, in fact, once you get over that whole
0xBE00 thing...

> > On which RTL8366RB chip revisions did you test for regressions?
>
> I don't have any of the chips to test this. What I agreed on with
> Linus Walleji was to send the patch after making sure everything
> compiled properly and checkpatch was happy with what I produced.
> Once the patch was sent, he said he'd test it.
> I ran some simulations, but that's pretty much it. I know those
> are not enough, so I'm waiting as well.

It is probably a safe change as it is, if you ran some simulations and
the same values at the same register addresses are jammed before and
after, it should be fine. The code looks okay.