linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 1/6] net: ethtool: common: Make BaseT a 4-lanes mode

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: <Z5FGMfF1ox-KhFAg@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:25:37 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
	Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
	Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, mwojtas@...omium.org,
	Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 1/6] net: ethtool: common: Make BaseT a
 4-lanes mode

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 06:55:17PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 06:42:46PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > When referring to BaseT ethernet, we are most of the time thinking of
> > BaseT4 ethernet on Cat5/6/7 cables. This is therefore BaseT4, although
> > BaseT4 is also possible for 100BaseTX. This is even more true now that
> > we have a special __LINK_MODE_LANES_T1 mode especially for Single Pair
> > ethernet.
> > 
> > Mark BaseT as being a 4-lanes mode.
> 
> This is a problem:
> 
> 1.4.50 10BASE-T: IEEE 802.3 Physical Layer specification for a 10 Mb/s
> CSMA/CD local area network over two pairs of twisted-pair telephone
> wire. (See IEEE Std 802.3, Clause 14.)
> 
> Then we have the 100BASE-T* family, which can be T1, T2, T4 or TX.
> T1 is over a single balanced twisted pair. T2 is over two pairs of
> Cat 3 or better. T4 is over four pairs of Cat3/4/5.
> 
> The common 100BASE-T* type is TX, which is over two pairs of Cat5.
> This is sadly what the ethtool 100baseT link modes are used to refer
> to.
> 
> We do have a separate link mode for 100baseT1, but not 100baseT4.
> 
> So, these ethtool modes that are of the form baseT so far are
> describing generally two pairs, one pair in each direction. (T1 is
> a single pair that is bidirectional.)
> 
> It's only once we get to 1000BASE-T (1000baseT) that we get to an
> ethtool link mode that has four lanes in a bidirectional fashion.
> 
> So, simply redefining this ends up changing 10baseT and 100baseT from
> a single lane in each direction to four lanes (and is a "lane" here
> defined as the total number of pairs used for communication in both
> directions, or the total number of lanes used in either direction.
> 
> Hence, I'm not sure this makes sense.

Looking at patch 2, I don't see why you need patch 1. It's not really
improving the situation. Before the patch, the number of lanes for
some BASE-T is wrong. After the patch, the number of lanes for some
BASE-T is also wrong - just a different subset.

I think you should drop this patch and just have patch 2.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!