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: <20180328165154.GQ10980@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:51:54 +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 09:19:01AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:41 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Right.  Still nicer to use the same formats.

I'll stick a "Warning:" and "Error:" tag before them if you really
want the rest of the message to be identically formatted - otherwise,
when seeing reports from people's dmesg, there will be nothing to
indicate which message was printed.

-- 
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