netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] net: phy: sfp: Warn when using generic PHY driver

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: <4d69c29a-0711-4d43-7556-72d16c402b08@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:42:10 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] net: phy: sfp: Warn when using generic
 PHY driver

On 11/6/18 3:38 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> Date: Tue,  6 Nov 2018 15:29:10 -0800
> 
>> This patch series allows warning an user that the generic PHY driver(s)
>> are used when a SFP incorporates a PHY (e.g: 1000BaseT SFP) which is
>> likely not going to work at all.
>>
>> Let me know if you would want to do that differently.
> 
> Is there ever a possibility that the generic PHY driver could work
> in an SFP situation?

Given the PHY has to operate in SGMII mode, I doubt it could work
without a specialized driver, Andrew, Russell, would you concur?

> 
> If not, yes emit the message but also fail the load and registry too
> perhaps?
> 

I was not sure this would be acceptable, but it is definitively an easy
change.
-- 
Florian