linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sfp: add 2500base-X quirk for Lantech SFP module

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 22:07:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sfp: add 2500base-X quirk for Lantech SFP
 module

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 21:50:14 +0100 Michael Walle wrote:
> The Lantech 8330-262D-E module is 2500base-X capable, but it reports the
> nominal bitrate as 2500MBd instead of 3125MBd. Add a quirk for the
> module.
> 
> The following in an EEPROM dump of such a SFP with the serial number
> redacted:
> 
> 00: 03 04 07 00 00 00 01 20 40 0c 05 01 19 00 00 00    ???...? @????...
> 10: 1e 0f 00 00 4c 61 6e 74 65 63 68 20 20 20 20 20    ??..Lantech
> 20: 20 20 20 20 00 00 00 00 38 33 33 30 2d 32 36 32        ....8330-262
> 30: 44 2d 45 20 20 20 20 20 56 31 2e 30 03 52 00 cb    D-E     V1.0?R.?
> 40: 00 1a 00 00 46 43 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX    .?..FCXXXXXXXXXX
> 50: 20 20 20 20 32 32 30 32 31 34 20 20 68 b0 01 98        220214  h???
> 60: 45 58 54 52 45 4d 45 4c 59 20 43 4f 4d 50 41 54    EXTREMELY COMPAT
> 70: 49 42 4c 45 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20    IBLE

Any idea what the "Extremely Compatible" is referring to? :-D

> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>

A quirk like this seems safe to apply to net and 5.17, still.
Would you prefer that or net-next as marked?