netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: If PHY doesn't have an interrupt then POLL

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: <658086be-8ea6-c419-65f5-c627fb2d0654@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:42:38 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	steve.glendinning@...well.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: If PHY doesn't have an interrupt then POLL

On 06/15/2016 12:40 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote:

>>>>> If the interrupt configuration isn't set and we are using the
>>>>
>>>>     It's never set, judging by the driver code.
>>>>
>>>>> internal phy, then we need to poll the phy to reliably detect
>>>>> phy state changes.
>>>>
>>>>     What address your internal PHY is at? Mine is at 1, and things seem
>>>> to work reliably after probing:
>>>>
>>>> SMSC LAN8700 18000000.etherne:01: attached PHY driver [SMSC LAN8700]
>>>> (mii_bus:phy_addr=18000000.etherne:01, irq=-1)
>>>>
>>>>     I'm using the device tree on my board.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm back on the machine, this is what mine says without that patch.
>>>
>>> SMSC LAN911x Internal PHY 18000000.etherne:01: attached PHY driver [SMSC
>>> LAN911x Internal PHY] (mii_bus:phy_addr=18000000.etherne:01, irq=0)
>>
>>     Hum, that's unexpected... things are probably more complex that I
>> thought. Do you have extra patches to this driver by changce?
>
> No, the initial kernel where the problem was discovered is
> 4.5.2-301.fc24.aarch64, but I built a mainline 4.6, and modprobed the driver
> with the same effect.
>
>
> Although, now that I'm looking closer at phy_irq, I'm curious how it works for
> anyone else...

    Does anything change when you comment out that memcpy()? It shouldn't 
probably...

MBR, Sergei