linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/12] net: ethernet: oa

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, 6 Mar 2024 14:40:55 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban Veerasooran <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com,
	ruanjinjie@...wei.com, steen.hegelund@...rochip.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com, Pier.Beruto@...emi.com,
	Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
	benjamin.bigler@...nformulastudent.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/12] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement
 register write operation

> +config OA_TC6
> +	tristate "OPEN Alliance TC6 10BASE-T1x MAC-PHY support"
> +	depends on SPI
> +	select PHYLIB
> +	help
> +	  This library implements OPEN Alliance TC6 10BASE-T1x MAC-PHY
> +	  Serial Interface protocol for supporting 10BASE-T1x MAC-PHYs.
> +
> +	  To know the implementation details, refer documentation in
> +	  <file:Documentation/networking/oa-tc6-framework.rst>.
> +
> +	  This option is provided for the case where no in-kernel-tree modules
> +	  require OA_TC6 functions, but a module built outside the kernel tree
> +	  does. Such modules that use library OA_TC6 functions require M here.

We generally don't refer to out of tree modules. We know they exist,
but we don't take any steps to support them, the internal APIs are not
fixed etc. So i would drop this last paragraph.

> +static int oa_tc6_check_ctrl_write_reply(struct oa_tc6 *tc6, u8 size)
> +{
> +	u8 *tx_buf = tc6->spi_ctrl_tx_buf;
> +	u8 *rx_buf = tc6->spi_ctrl_rx_buf;
> +
> +	rx_buf += OA_TC6_CTRL_IGNORED_SIZE;
> +
> +	/* The echoed control write must match with the one that was
> +	 * transmitted.
> +	 */
> +	if (memcmp(tx_buf, rx_buf, size - OA_TC6_CTRL_IGNORED_SIZE))
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +

I think EPROTO or EIO would be better. The device might have crashed,
burned and is gone, but isn't a bit flip on the SPI bus more likely?

       Andrew