linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: stmmac: fix PPS capture input index

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:50:42 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Johannes Zink <j.zink@...gutronix.de>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, patchwork-jzi@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: stmmac: fix PPS capture input index

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 22:27:41 +0200 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > Would be good to clarify what impact on device operation the problem
> > has. How would end user notice the problem?
> > Does it mean snapshots were always or never enabled, previously?  
> 
> On all dwmac devices not covered by dwmac-intel.c (INTEL 10/100/1000
> Ethernet PCI driver), PPS capture can be requested from user-space, but
> is not enabled in HW. There is no error message or other feedback to the
> user space. The user space will not get any PPS events.
> 
> As this change also affects the Intel driver, and we don't have any
> hardware to test, I think it's better that this goes via net-next to
> give it a bit more time of testing.

SGTM, we can chalk it up to "never worked, doesn't hurt anyone"
and put it in net-next. But then the Fixes tag must go.