netdev - Re: [PATCH] sfp: allow cotsworks 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180328104147.GO10980@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:41:48 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sfp: allow cotsworks modules

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:33:57AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:18 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > Cotsworks modules fail the checksums - it appears that Cotsworks
> > reprograms the EEPROM at the end of production with the final product
> > information (serial, date code, and exact part number for module
> > options) and fails to update the checksum.
> 
> trivia:
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> []
> > @@ -574,23 +575,43 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp)
> []
> > +		if (cotsworks) {
> > +			dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> > +				 "EEPROM base structure checksum failure (0x%02x != 0x%02x)\n",
> > +				 check, id.base.cc_base);
> > +		} else {
> > +			dev_err(sfp->dev,
> > +				"EEPROM base structure checksum failure: 0x%02x != 0x%02x\n",
> 
> It'd be better to move this above the if and
> use only a single format string instead of
> using 2 slightly different formats.

No.  I think you've missed the fact that one is a _warning_ the other is
an _error_ and they are emitted at the appropriate severity.  It's not
just that the format strings are slightly different.

> 
> > +				check, id.base.cc_base);
> > +			print_hex_dump(KERN_ERR, "sfp EE: ", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET,
> > +				       16, 1, &id, sizeof(id), true);
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +		}
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	check = sfp_check(&id.ext, sizeof(id.ext) - 1);
> >  	if (check != id.ext.cc_ext) {
> > -		dev_err(sfp->dev,
> > -			"EEPROM extended structure checksum failure: 0x%02x\n",
> > -			check);
> > -		memset(&id.ext, 0, sizeof(id.ext));
> > +		if (cotsworks) {
> > +			dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> > +				 "EEPROM extended structure checksum failure (0x%02x != 0x%02x)\n",
> > +				 check, id.ext.cc_ext);
> > +		} else {
> > +			dev_err(sfp->dev,
> > +				"EEPROM extended structure checksum failure: 0x%02x != 0x%02x\n",
> > +				check, id.ext.cc_ext);
> 
> 
> here too

Same applies.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up