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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 17:17:28 +0100 From: Piergiorgio Beruto <piergiorgio.beruto@...il.com> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/5] net/ethtool: add netlink interface for the PLCA RS On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:06:42PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 04:42:15PM +0100, Piergiorgio Beruto wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 03:16:00PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > TBH I can't parse the "ETHTOOL_A_PLCA_VERSION is reported as 0Axx > > > > > where.." sentence. Specifically I'm confused about what the 0A is. > > > > How about this: "When this standard is supported, the upper byte of > > > > ``ETHTOOL_A_PLCA_VERSION`` shall be 0x0A (see Table A.1.0 — IDVER > > > > bits assignment). > > > > > > I think the 0x0A is pointless and should not be included here. If the > > > register does not contain 0x0A, the device does not follow the open > > > alliance standard, and hence the lower part of the register is > > > meaningless. > > > > > > This is why i suggested -ENODEV should actually be returned on invalid > > > values in this register. > > I already integrated this change in v5 (returning -ENODEV). Give what you're > > saying, I can just remove that sentence from the documentations. Agreed? > > And only return the actual version value, not the 0x0A. About this, at the moment I am reporting the 0x0A to allow in the future possible extensions of the standard. A single byte for the version may be too limited given this technology is relatively fresh. What you think of this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists