linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3] net: fec: Refactor MAC reset to function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7501c8ee-9272-4c13-91a9-5c614c585fcf@prolan.hu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:53:50 +0100
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Laurent Badel <laurentbadel@...on.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	<imx@...ts.linux.dev>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
	"Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, Michal Swiatkowski
	<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, Jacob Keller
	<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, Shenwei Wang
	<shenwei.wang@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: fec: Refactor MAC reset to function

Hi,

On 2025. 02. 04. 16:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
 > Please don't post new versions in-reply-to, and add lore links to
 > the previous version in the changelog.

Will do. Is it okay to only include the last version, or should I 
collect them going back to v1?

> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:37:54 +0100 Csókás, Bence wrote:
>> For instance, as of now, `fec_stop()` does not check for
>> `FEC_QUIRK_NO_HARD_RESET`, meaning the MII/RMII mode is cleared on eg.
>> a PM power-down event; and `fec_restart()` missed the refactor renaming
>> the "magic" constant `1` to `FEC_ECR_RESET`.
> 
> Laurent responded to v1 saying this was intentional. Please give more
> details on how problem you're seeing and on what platforms. Otherwise
> this is not a fix but refactoring.

True, but he also said:
On 2025. 01. 21. 17:09, Badel, Laurent wrote:
 > If others disagree and there's a consensus that this change is ok, 
I'm happy
 > for the patch to get through, but I tend to err on the side of 
caution in such
 > cases.

I understand he is cautious, but I'd argue that the fact that two people 
already posted Reviewed-by: (not counting Simon, who since withdrew it), 
means that others also agree that we should err on the OTHER side of 
caution, and do the check in both cases. He also mentions that the 
reason he didn't do the check in `fec_stop()` was that he believed that 
the only time that gets called is on driver/interface remove, but that 
is not the case, as I outlined in the message already.

Bence