linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/4] phy: aquantia: Determine rate adaptation support from registers

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: <20230106232905.ievmjro2asx3dv3s@skbuf>
Date:   Sat, 7 Jan 2023 01:29:05 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/4] phy: aquantia: Determine rate adaptation
 support from registers

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 06:21:26PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 1/6/23 18:03, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 05:46:48PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 07:34:45PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> > So we lose the advertisement of 5G and 2.5G, even if the firmware is
> >> > provisioned for them via 10GBASE-R rate adaptation, right? Because when
> >> > asked "What kind of rate matching is supported for 10GBASE-R?", the
> >> > Aquantia driver will respond "None".
> >> 
> >> The code doesn't have the ability to do any better right now - since
> >> we don't know what sets of interface modes _could_ be used by the PHY
> >> and whether each interface mode may result in rate adaption.
> >> 
> >> To achieve that would mean reworking yet again all the phylink
> >> validation from scratch, and probably reworking phylib and most of
> >> the PHY drivers too so that they provide a lot more information
> >> about their host interface behaviour.
> >> 
> >> I don't think there is an easy way to have a "perfect" solution
> >> immediately - it's going to take a while to evolve - and probably
> >> painfully evolve due to the slowness involved in updating all the
> >> drivers that make use of phylink in some way.
> > 
> > Serious question. What do we gain in practical terms with this patch set
> > applied? With certain firmware provisioning, some unsupported link modes
> > won't be advertised anymore. But also, with other firmware, some supported
> > link modes won't be advertised anymore.
> 
> Well, before the rate adaptation series, none of this would be
> advertised. I would rather add advertisement only for what we can
> actually support. We can always come back later and add additional
> support.

Well, yes. But practically, does it matter that we are negotiating a
link speed that we don't support, when the effect is the same (link
doesn't come up)? The only practical case I see is where advertising
e.g. an unsupported 2.5G would cause the link to not establish at a
supported 1G. But as you say, I don't think this will be the case with
the firmware provisioning that Tim gave as an example?

> > IIUC, Tim Harvey's firmware ultimately had incorrect provisioning, it's
> > not like the existing code prevents his use case from working.
> 
> The existing code isn't great as-is, since all the user sees is that we
> e.g. negotiated for 1G, but the link never came up.
> 
> --Sean