netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: ehea: fix wrongly-reported supported modes

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: <1304546366.28342.14.camel@dream>
Date:	Wed, 04 May 2011 18:59:26 -0300
From:	Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ehea: fix wrongly-reported supported modes

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 22:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 21:16 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 16:42 -0300, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
> > > Currently EHEA reports to ethtool as supporting 10000baseT_Full and
> > > FIBRE independent of the hardware configuration. However, these
> > > capabilities should be reported only if the physical port and
> > > the medium support them, which is the case where the physical port
> > > is connected at 10Gb.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ehea/ehea_ethtool.c |   21 ++++++++++++++-------
> > >  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_ethtool.c
> > > index 3e2e734..04716c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_ethtool.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_ethtool.c
> > > @@ -55,15 +55,22 @@ static int ehea_get_settings(struct net_device *dev, struct ethtool_cmd *cmd)
> > >  		cmd->duplex = -1;
> > >  	}
> > > 
> > > -	cmd->supported = (SUPPORTED_10000baseT_Full | SUPPORTED_1000baseT_Full
> > > -		       | SUPPORTED_100baseT_Full |  SUPPORTED_100baseT_Half
> > > -		       | SUPPORTED_10baseT_Full | SUPPORTED_10baseT_Half
> > > -		       | SUPPORTED_Autoneg | SUPPORTED_FIBRE);
> > > +	cmd->supported = (SUPPORTED_1000baseT_Full | SUPPORTED_100baseT_Full
> > > +		       | SUPPORTED_100baseT_Half | SUPPORTED_10baseT_Full
> > > +		       | SUPPORTED_10baseT_Half | SUPPORTED_Autoneg);
> > > 
> > > -	cmd->advertising = (ADVERTISED_10000baseT_Full | ADVERTISED_Autoneg
> > > -			 | ADVERTISED_FIBRE);
> > > +	cmd->advertising = ADVERTISED_Autoneg;
> > > +
> > > +	if (cmd->speed == SPEED_10000) {
> > > +		cmd->supported |= (SUPPORTED_10000baseT_Full | SUPPORTED_FIBRE);
> > > +		cmd->advertising |= (ADVERTISED_10000baseT_Full | ADVERTISED_FIBRE);
> > > +		cmd->port = PORT_FIBRE;
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		cmd->supported |= SUPPORTED_TP;
> > > +		cmd->advertising |= (ADVERTISED_1000baseT_Full | ADVERTISED_TP);
> > > +		cmd->port = PORT_TP;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > This doesn't make any sense.  If the current speed is 10G, then the
> > driver also claims to support speeds of 10M, 100M, 1G and 10G.  But then
>                                                                ^
>                                                            on fibre
> 
> > if the speed actually is <10G, the driver claims to support TP.  What's
> > going on here?

You are right. This patch was based on very vague hardware specs that
wasn't making much sense. I have more details about the hardware now, I
will send another patch soon.

> > 
> > (Also, claiming to support BASE-T modes on non-TP media is bogus, though
> > I understand why people are doing it.)
> > 
> > Ben.
> > 
> > > -	cmd->port = PORT_FIBRE;
> > >  	cmd->autoneg = port->autoneg == 1 ? AUTONEG_ENABLE : AUTONEG_DISABLE;
> > > 
> > >  	return 0;
> > 
> 

-- 
Kleber S. Souza
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html