linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 3/3] net: dsa: microchip: Fix PHY loopback configuration for KSZ8794 and KSZ8873

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: <20231206164329.fszkmpilktyq6r6v@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:43:29 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 3/3] net: dsa: microchip: Fix PHY loopback
 configuration for KSZ8794 and KSZ8873

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > I don't see DSA implementing ndo_set_features(), nor offering NETIF_F_LOOPBACK.
> > The PHY is integrated, so DSA is the only relevant netdev driver. Is
> > there any other way to test this functionality?
> 
> yes - net_selftest()

Ok, I didn't notice net_test_phy_loopback_enable(). So it can be
triggered after all, it seems.

But I mean, if it's exclusively a selftest that fails, and has always
failed since its introduction, I think it can be considered new
development work when it stops failing? I don't believe that the impact
of the bug is relevant for users. It's not a production functionality.
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't specifically say
this, but it does imply that we should triage the "real bugs that bother
people" as much as possible.

> > If not, I think it's a case of "tree falling in the woods and nobody
> > hearing it". Not "stable" material. But it definitely has nothing to do
> > with not caring about the switch variant.
> 
> Sorry, my intention is not to criticize anyone. I am not getting
> feedbacks or bug reports for ksz88xx variants, so it seems like not many
> people use it in upstream.
> 
> When I have time slots to work on this driver, I try to use them to do
> fixes and also clean up the code. Since there is some sort of fog of
> uncertainty about when I get the next time slot, or even if I get it at
> all, I am trying to push both fixes and cleanups together.
> 
> But, you are right, it is not a good reason for not caring about stable :)
> 
> What is the decision about this patch set?

I wouldn't bend over backwards for this, and reorder the patches.
I would spend my time doing more meaningful things.