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  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]
Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:43:22 -0800
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>
CC:	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

On 01/18/2012 02:19 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 22:45 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>> Jesse Brandeburg<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>  writes:
>>
>>> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
>>> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
>>> supported.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
>>
>> I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity
>> hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work;
>> that effort is certainly on hold now.
>
> I cannot understand why Intel are pulling a stunt like this! :-(
>
> I have read the code, and the limitation comes from a EEPROM setting on
> the NIC, see define "IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP 0x1".
>
> Here is a (untested) patch I believe removes the limitation in the
> driver:
>
>
> [PATCH] ixgbe: Always allow any SFP+ regardless of EEPROM setting.
>
> Intel are trying to limit which SFP's we can use in our NICs.
> We don't like this practices in the Linux Kernel.

I think that you should at least print some big warnings in
the kernel logs if you do this, as well as all the info you
can find on the non-supported SFP+ module in use so that folks can debug
things if the SFP+ doesn't properly work.

As previously mentioned, I found a case where some random SFP+
did NOT work with a similar hack in place...

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists