netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/5] Support for PHY test modes

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: <20180501.140614.228810492759253433.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 01 May 2018 14:06:14 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rmk@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cphealy@...il.com,
        nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/5] Support for PHY test modes

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:21:54 -0700

> On 04/30/2018 04:24 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> Turning these tests on will typically result in the link partner
>>> dropping the link with us, and the interface will be non-functional as
>>> far as the data path is concerned (similar to an isolation mode). This
>>> might warrant properly reporting that to user-space through e.g: a
>>> private IFF_* value maybe?
>> 
>> Hi Florian
>> 
>> I think a IFF_* value would be a good idea. We want to give the user
>> some indicate why they don't have working networking. ip link show
>> showing PHY-TEST-MODE would help.
> 
> IF_OPER_TESTING as defined in RFC 2863 looks like the correct way to
> signal that. I did a quick test and setting operstate to
> IFF_OPER_TESTING seems to correctly get reflected by iproute2/ifconfig
> which no longer see RUNNING though the interface is still UP. If we
> couple that with a proper phy_stop(), this would IMHO be consistent from
> an user experience perspective.
> 
> David, would that look reasonable to you?

Yes, it does.