linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: dp83869: Support 1000Base-X SFP modules

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: <3iyvm6curoco35xuyos5llxvnvopvphl5cnndaacg2v5jiu3l7@aaic3jfqhjaz>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:01:07 +0200
From: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
To: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, 
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, 
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: dp83869: Support 1000Base-X SFP
 modules

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 09:49:59AM +0200, Romain Gantois wrote:
>  
> +static int dp83869_port_configure_serdes(struct phy_port *port, bool enable,
> +					 phy_interface_t interface)
> +{
> +	struct phy_device *phydev = port_phydev(port);
> +	struct dp83869_private *dp83869;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!enable)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	dp83869 = phydev->priv;
> +
> +	switch (interface) {
> +	case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX:
> +		dp83869->mode = DP83869_RGMII_1000_BASE;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		phydev_err(phydev, "Incompatible SFP module inserted\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = dp83869_configure_mode(phydev, dp83869);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/* Update advertisement */
> +	if (mutex_trylock(&phydev->lock)) {
> +		ret = dp83869_config_aneg(phydev);
> +		mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
> +	}

Just skimmed through this quickly and it's not clear to me why aneg is
restarted only if there was no contention on the global phydev lock;
it's not guaranteed a concurrent holder would do the same. If this is
intended, a comment would be welcomed.

Thanks!