linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/9] net: sunhme: Just restart autonegotiation if we can't bring the link up

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, 15 Mar 2023 16:57:29 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/9] net: sunhme: Just restart
 autonegotiation if we can't bring the link up

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:35:19AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/15/23 04:20, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:36:05PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > If we've tried regular autonegotiation and forcing the link mode, just
> > > restart autonegotiation instead of reinitializing the whole NIC.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com>
> > 
> > Hi Sean,
> > 
> > This patch looks fine to me, as do patches 3 - 4, which is as far as I have
> > got with my review.
> > 
> > I do, however, have a general question regarding most of the patches in this
> > series: to what extent have they been tested on HW?
> 
> I have tested them with some PCI cards, mostly with the other end
> autonegotiating 100M. This series doesn't really touch the phy state
> machines, so I think it is fine to just make sure the link comes up (and
> things work after bringing the interface down and up).

Understood, I'll proceed with my review on that basis.

> > And my follow-up question is: to what extent should we consider removing
> > support for hardware that isn't being tested and therefore has/will likely
> > have become broken break at some point? Quattro, the subject of a latter
> > patch in this series, seems to be a case in point.
> 
> Well, I ordered a quattro card (this hardware is quite cheap on ebay) so
> hopefully I can test that.

Yes, for some reason I was searching on eBay too :)

> The real question is whether there's anyone using this on sparc. I tried
> CCing some sparc users mailing lists in the cover letter, but no luck so
> far.

Yes, that is the question.