linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v12 08/18] net: ethernet: mtk_eth

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:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:46:42 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jianhui Zhao <zhaojh329@...il.com>,
        Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
        Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
        Alexander Couzens <lynxis@...0.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v12 08/18] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: fix
 1000Base-X and 2500Base-X modes

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:12:10PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> So, what I would want to do is to move the decision about whether
> the PCS should enable in-band into the phylink core code instead
> of these random decisions being made in each PCS.
> 
> At that point, we can then make the decision about whether the
> ethtool autoneg bit should affect whether the PCS uses inband
> depending on whether the PCS is effectively the media facing
> entity, or whether there is a PHY attached - and if there is a PHY
> attached, ask the PHY whether it will be using in-band or not.
> 
> This also would give a way to ensure that all PCS adopt the same
> behaviour.
> 
> Does that sound a reasonable approach?
> 
> Strangely, I already have some patches along those lines in my
> net-queue branch. See:
> 
> net: phylink: add helpers for decoding mode
> net: use phylink_mode_*() helpers
> net: phylink: split PCS in-band from inband mode
> 
> It's nowhere near finished though, it was just an idea back in
> 2021 when the problem of getting rid of differing PCS behaviours
> was on my mind.

Having looked at those patches
(http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=a632167d226cf95d92cd887b2f1678e1539833b1)
and seen the way in which they are incomplete, could you sketch here how
do you see an actual pcs_validate() implementation making use of the new
"mode" argument?

I'd expect there to be some logic which changes the "mode", if the PCS
validation with the existing one fails... or?