linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: fec: limit register access on i.MX6UL

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: <225dea11564ae514e31c2809d4644d732b2e4db5.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:40:30 +0200
From:   Juergen Borleis <jbe@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fec: limit register access on i.MX6UL

Am Dienstag, dem 20.09.2022 um 14:46 +0200 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> > +/* for i.MX6ul */
> > +static u32 fec_enet_register_offset_6ul[] = {
> > +       FEC_IEVENT, FEC_IMASK, FEC_R_DES_ACTIVE_0, FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE_0,
> > +       FEC_ECNTRL, FEC_MII_DATA, FEC_MII_SPEED, FEC_MIB_CTRLSTAT,
> > FEC_R_CNTRL,
> > +       FEC_X_CNTRL, FEC_ADDR_LOW, FEC_ADDR_HIGH, FEC_OPD, FEC_TXIC0,
> > FEC_RXIC0,
> > +       FEC_HASH_TABLE_HIGH, FEC_HASH_TABLE_LOW, FEC_GRP_HASH_TABLE_HIGH,
> > +       FEC_GRP_HASH_TABLE_LOW, FEC_X_WMRK, FEC_R_DES_START_0,
> > +       FEC_X_DES_START_0, FEC_R_BUFF_SIZE_0, FEC_R_FIFO_RSFL,
> > FEC_R_FIFO_RSEM,
> > +       FEC_R_FIFO_RAEM, FEC_R_FIFO_RAFL, FEC_RACC,
> > +       RMON_T_DROP, RMON_T_PACKETS, RMON_T_BC_PKT, RMON_T_MC_PKT,
> > +       RMON_T_CRC_ALIGN, RMON_T_UNDERSIZE, RMON_T_OVERSIZE, RMON_T_FRAG,
> > +       RMON_T_JAB, RMON_T_COL, RMON_T_P64, RMON_T_P65TO127,
> > RMON_T_P128TO255,
> > +       RMON_T_P256TO511, RMON_T_P512TO1023, RMON_T_P1024TO2047,
> > +       RMON_T_P_GTE2048, RMON_T_OCTETS,
> > +       IEEE_T_DROP, IEEE_T_FRAME_OK, IEEE_T_1COL, IEEE_T_MCOL, IEEE_T_DEF,
> > +       IEEE_T_LCOL, IEEE_T_EXCOL, IEEE_T_MACERR, IEEE_T_CSERR, IEEE_T_SQE,
> > +       IEEE_T_FDXFC, IEEE_T_OCTETS_OK,
> > +       RMON_R_PACKETS, RMON_R_BC_PKT, RMON_R_MC_PKT, RMON_R_CRC_ALIGN,
> > +       RMON_R_UNDERSIZE, RMON_R_OVERSIZE, RMON_R_FRAG, RMON_R_JAB,
> > +       RMON_R_RESVD_O, RMON_R_P64, RMON_R_P65TO127, RMON_R_P128TO255,
> > +       RMON_R_P256TO511, RMON_R_P512TO1023, RMON_R_P1024TO2047,
> > +       RMON_R_P_GTE2048, RMON_R_OCTETS,
> > +       IEEE_R_DROP, IEEE_R_FRAME_OK, IEEE_R_CRC, IEEE_R_ALIGN,
> > IEEE_R_MACERR,
> > +       IEEE_R_FDXFC, IEEE_R_OCTETS_OK
> > +};
> >  #else
> >  static __u32 fec_enet_register_version = 1;
> 
> Seeing this, i wonder if the i.MX6ul needs its own register version,
> so that ethtool(1) knows what registers are valid?

I don't think so. The register layout is the same in both SoCs, e.g. all
existing registers are at the same offsets on i.MX6 and i.MX6UL. And due to the
memset() call, the few missing registers on i.MX6UL are all reported as 0.

jb

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                       | Juergen Borleis             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                   | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-128  |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686       | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |