netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4] r8169: Bad implementation of netif_carrier

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: <1455190883.2484.9.camel@marian1000.go.ro>
Date:	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:41:23 +0200
From:	Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] r8169: Bad implementation of netif_carrier_*

On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 06:12 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:52:49 +0200
> 
> > On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 03:39 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>
> >> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:27:43 +0200
> >> 
> >> >   On probe stage what carrier to stop and rest two situation
> >> >   netif_carrier_* is slow and disturbing autonegociation
> process.
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Corcodel Marian <asd@...ian1000.go.ro>
> >> 
> >> This doesn't tell us at all why your change is valid.  You aren't
> >> going into the details of what you mean by "disturbing" and why it
> >> being "slow" is really a problem.
> >> 
> >> In general, your patches are of a very low quality.  You give
> never
> >> give us enough information to properly evaluate your patch.
> >> 
> >> It is unlikely that even one of your patches will be applied by
> >> me until you fix this fundamental problem with your submissions.
> > 
> > May bee netif_carrier_* is good on slow changes of link good status
> of
> > interrupt ,is unable to keep track changes from link good
> interrupt.
> 
> You're still not telling us anything.
> 
> The situation with your submissions is not improving.
> 
> Sorry.
 
On my opinion  dmesg  must have one line with "link down" and one line
with "link up"
One mee result of dmesg | grep r8169 is :

$ dmesg | grep r8169
[    2.476418] r8169: module verification failed: signature and/or
required key missing - tainting kernel
[    2.477605] r8169 Gigabit Ethernet driver 2.3LK-NAPI loaded
[    2.478760] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: RTL8102e at 0xf842a000,
00:22:15:4b:fd:ce, XID 14a00000 IRQ 24
[   39.513256] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: link down
[   39.513284] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: link down
[   53.153284] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: link up

On good cases, on worst case "link down" and "link up" messages will
succeed from 3-4 times and produce unlikely result with netif_carrier_*
on  combination.