netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: add phy_speed_down and phy_speed

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: <20180712190945.GC10740@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:09:45 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: add phy_speed_down and
 phy_speed_up

> Like r8169 also tg3 driver doesn't wait for the speed-down-renegotiation
> to finish. Therefore, even though I share Andrew's concerns, there seem
> to be chips where it's safe to not wait for the renegotiation to finish
> (e.g. because device is in PCI D3 already and can't generate an interrupt).
> Having said that I'd keep the sync parameter for phy_speed_down so that
> the driver can decide.

Hi Heiner

Please put a big fat comment about the dangers of sync=false in the
function header. We want people to known it is dangerous by default,
and should only be used in special conditions, when it is known to be
safe.
	Andrew