linux-kernel - Re: [v2,2/5] net: phy: realtek: simplify C22 reg access via MDIO_MMD

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: <2279fd03-6261-44fb-b4c5-df2786a17aa0@meta.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 19:10:15 -0500
From: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, michael@...sekall.de,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, edumazet@...gle.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        olek2@...pl, davem@...emloft.net, vladimir.oltean@....com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [v2,2/5] net: phy: realtek: simplify C22 reg access via
 MDIO_MMD_VEND2

On 1/17/26 6:55 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 23:40:36 +0000 Daniel Golle wrote:
>>>> @@ -1156,7 +1156,8 @@ static int rtlgen_read_status(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>>>  	if (!phydev->link)
>>>>  		return 0;
>>>>
>>>> -	val = phy_read(phydev, RTL_PHYSR);
>>>> +	val = phy_read_paged(phydev, RTL822X_VND2_TO_PAGE(RTL_VND2_PHYSR),
>>>> +			     RTL822X_VND2_TO_PAGE_REG(RTL_VND2_PHYSR));  
>>>
>>> This changes rtlgen_read_status() from reading C22 register MII_RESV2
>>> (0x1a) directly to using paged access at page 0xa43, register 18.  
>>
>> Yeah. Just that this is not part of the series submitted.
>> It's rather a (halucinated) partial revert of
>> [v2,4/5] net: phy: realtek: demystify PHYSR register location
> 
> Oh wow, that's a first. No idea how this happened. Is the chunk if
> hallucinated from another WIP patch set?
> 
> Chris, FWIW this is before we added lore indexing so I don't think 
> it got it from the list. Is it possible that semcode index is polluted
> by previous submissions? Still, even if, it's weird that it'd
> hallucinate a chunk of a patch.

We've definitely had it mix up hunks from other commits, but not since I
changed the prompts to make it re-read the files before writing
review-inline.txt.

But, it absolutely does ignore parts of the prompt sometimes.  I'll give
the logs a read and see if there are any clues, thanks for flagging it.

-chris