linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: introduce phydev->port

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: <f2791b563e18107d8b015e35832a45d5@walle.cc>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 13:10:43 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: introduce phydev->port

Am 2021-02-10 12:54, schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux admin:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:20:02PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>> 
>> Am 2021-02-09 17:38, schrieb Michael Walle:
>> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>> > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ void phy_ethtool_ksettings_get(struct phy_device
>> > *phydev,
>> >  	if (phydev->interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MOCA)
>> >  		cmd->base.port = PORT_BNC;
>> >  	else
>> > -		cmd->base.port = PORT_MII;
>> > +		cmd->base.port = phydev->port;
>> >  	cmd->base.transceiver = phy_is_internal(phydev) ?
>> >  				XCVR_INTERNAL : XCVR_EXTERNAL;
>> >  	cmd->base.phy_address = phydev->mdio.addr;
>> 
>> Russell, the phylink has a similiar place where PORT_MII is set. I 
>> don't
>> know if we'd have to change that, too.
> 
> What would we change it to?

It was just a question whether we have to change it and I take from your
answer we do not. I was just curious because there is the same edge case
for the PORT_BNC like in the phy core.

> If there's no PHY attached and no SFP, what kind of interface do we
> have? As we've no idea what's on the media side, assuming that we are
> presenting a MII-like interface to stuff outside of what we control is
> entirely reasonable.
> 
> Claiming the world is TP would be entirely wrong, there may not be a
> RJ45 jack. Consider the case where the MAC is connected to a switch.
> It's a MII-like link. It's certianly not TP, BNC, fiber, AUI, or
> direct attach.

Yes, I get your point.

-michael