netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] r8169: Don't claim WoL works if LanWake flag is not set

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: <20151211094229.GC3507@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:42:29 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@...hat.com>
To:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
	Chun-Hao Lin <hau@...ltek.com>,
	Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>,
	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] r8169: Don't claim WoL works if LanWake flag is not
 set

On Dec 11 01:06, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@...hat.com> :
> [...]
> > It's still a bit weird.  On the machines I tested this on, if I disable
> > LanWake and shutdown the machine, I can send, e.g., MagicPackets as much
> > as I like, the machined don't come up.  Isn't it a bit misleading then
> > if ethtool reports that some WoL method is enabled but it doesn't work?
> 
> Of course it is. :o(
> 
> I'm fine with Config5.LanWake changes if you have empirical evidences that
> it helps.
> 
> We have terse - outdated ? - documentation and some hint from
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137654699802446. I'm unable to figure
> what an/the adequate change could be, especially a low level chance of
> regression one.

I think the problem here is that LanWake only switches off aspects of
the WoL capability which can't be reflected in a reliable way to the
kernel.  That's certainly one reason for the driver to enable/disable
LanWake always in lock-step with PMEnable.

So I wonder if we shouldn't just add some code to rtl_init_one (or
create a new function called from rtl_init_one) which checks the WoL
flags and if the PmConfig and LanWake flags are set inconsistently
(aka "differently") then set them to an equal value, either 0 (no WoL
method enabled) or 1 (any WoL method enabled).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Corinna

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped