netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] net: phy: improve and simplify phylib state machine

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: <5c2d1fba-0c94-210f-0d9b-e1d8f70fbee0@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:05:49 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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 0/5] net: phy: improve and simplify phylib state
 machine

On 07.11.2018 20:48, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 08:41:52PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> This patch series is based on two axioms:
>>
>> - During autoneg a PHY always reports the link being down
> 
> Hi Heiner
> 
> I think that is a risky assumption to make.
> 
I wasn't sure initially too (found no clear rule in 802.3 clause 22)
and therefore asked around. Florian agrees to the assumption,
see here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg519242.html

If a PHY reports the link as up then every user would assume that
data can be transferred. But that's not the case during aneg.
Therefore reporting the link as up during aneg wouldn't make sense.

> What happens if this assumption is incorrect?
> 
Then we have to flush this patch series down the drain ;)
At least I would have to check in detail which parts need to be
changed. I clearly mention the assumptions so that every
reviewer can check whether he agrees.

>      Andrew
> 
Heiner