linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Wait a bit for the reset to take effect

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:45:19 +0100
From:   Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Wait a bit for the reset to take effect

On 11/2/23 12:25, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 07:01 +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> otherwise the synopsys_id value may be read out wrong,
>> because the GMAC_VERSION register might still be in reset
>> state, for at least 1 us after the reset is de-asserted.
>>
>> Add a wait for 10 us before continuing to be on the safe side.
> 
> This looks like a bugfix: you should target explicitly the 'net' tree,
I dont understand, did you mean to add "net:" to the subject?
It is already "net: stmmac: ..." or did you mean to send this message to
another mailing list?

> adding such tag into the subj. More importantly you should include a
> suitable 'Fixes' tag.
> 

You mean an informal description of what this fixes?
like
Fixes: Randomly occurring "Version ID not available" messages.

Or do mean to pick a commit where the error was introduced?  I doubt
I am able to do the necessary bisection steps, as this seems like an
issue that was introduced by the initial design.  And I also doubt that
it can only affect the GMAC_VERSION register.
To make that clear, the issue is totally harmless, maybe some performance
degradation but I became aware of it only because I was trying to solve
a totally different issue, and therefore I have looked very closely at the
printk messages, so I spotted the anomaly to tracked it down the reason for
this flaw.

Thanks
Bernd.

> Please send a new revision with the above changes. You can retain the
> already collected reviewed tags.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
>