netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: sfp: Do not reject soldered down modules

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1b490bbc-8200-31c8-d9ef-ff8be0ad27fd@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 20:39:09 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, andrew@...n.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: sfp: Do not reject soldered down
 modules



On 11/08/2017 03:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> The SFP module identification code in sfp_sm_mod_probe() will reject SFF
>> modules soldered down because they have an identified of 0x2, while the code
>> currently checks for 0x3 only (SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP), update that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 5 +++--
>>  include/linux/sfp.h   | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
>> index e381811e5f11..942288aa9cdb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
>> @@ -463,8 +463,9 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp)
>>  		 vendor, part, rev, sn, date);
>>  
>>  	/* We only support SFP modules, not the legacy GBIC modules. */
>> -	if (sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP ||
>> -	    sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
>> +	if ((sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP &&
>> +	     sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFF) ||
>> +	     sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
> 
> I'd prefer that we do something like the patch I sent a couple of nights
> ago, having a separate compatible for the SFF modules (since they have
> no insert signal as SFF is soldered in place) and use that to decide
> which phys_id we accept here.

Fair enough.
-- 
Florian