| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fcfb1597-e8f4-27c6-ae8c-646fd43c846d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:44:33 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net v3] net: phy: Fix the issue that netif always
links up after resuming
On 18.12.2018 07:25, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> Hi Heiner,
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:43:31 +0100 <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17.12.2018 19:41, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 17.12.2018 07:41, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Gentle ping...
>>>> Are there any comments about changes since v2?
>>>>
>>>> v2: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg536926.html
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:22:29 +0900 <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even though the link is down before entering hibernation,
>>>>> there is an issue that the network interface always links up after resuming
>>>>> from hibernation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The phydev->state is PHY_READY before enabling the network interface, so
>>>>> the link is down. After resuming from hibernation, the phydev->state is
>>>>> forcibly set to PHY_UP in mdio_bus_phy_restore(), and the link becomes up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch adds a new convenient function to check whether the PHY is in
>>>>> a started state, and expects to solve the issue by changing phydev->state
>>>>> to PHY_UP and calling phy_start_machine() only when the PHY is started.
>>>>>
>>> This convenience function and the related change to phy_stop() are part of
>>> the following already and don't need to be part of your patch.
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1014171/
>
> I see. I'll follow your patch when necessary.
>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since v2:
>>>>> - add mutex lock/unlock for changing phydev->state
>>>>> - check whether the mutex is locked in phy_is_started()
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>> - introduce a new helper function phy_is_started() and use it instead of
>>>>> checking link status
>>>>> - replace checking phydev->state with phy_is_started() in
>>>>> phy_stop_machine()
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 2 +-
>>>>> drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 12 +++++++++---
>>>>> include/linux/phy.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>>>>> index 1d73ac3..f484d03 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>>>>> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ void phy_stop_machine(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>>>> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&phydev->state_queue);
>>>>>
>>>>> mutex_lock(&phydev->lock);
>>>>> - if (phydev->state > PHY_UP && phydev->state != PHY_HALTED)
>>>>> + if (phy_is_started(phydev))
>>>>> phydev->state = PHY_UP;
>>>
>>> I'm wondering whether we need to do this. If the PHY is attached,
>>> then mdio_bus_phy_suspend() calls phy_stop_machine() which does
>>> exactly the same. If the PHY is not attached, then we don't have
>>> to do anything. Therefore I think we just have to do the same as
>>> in mdio_bus_phy_resume():
>>>
>>> if (phydev->attached_dev && phydev->adjust_link)
>>> phy_start_machine(phydev);
>
> Agreed.
>
> Although the original code changed phydev->state,
> it seems that it's only enough to
> - call phy_stop_machine() in mdio_bus_phy_suspend()
> - call phy_start_machine() in mdio_bus_phy_resume() and mdio_bus_phy_restore()
> if the PHY is attached.
>
>>> Can you test this?
>
> I tested your code instead of applying my entire patch, and I confirmed
> that the code solved the issue in my environment.
>
> Do you make new patch instead of my patch?
> (and I can add Reported-by: for the issue and Tested-by:)
>
Up to you. It's fine with me if you submit the patch, but I can also do it
and mention you in Reported-by and Tested-by. Just let me know.
> Thank you,
>
>
>>>
>> Sorry for the confusion, this comment is related to the next part
>> of your patch.
>>
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>>> index ab33d17..4897d24 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>>> @@ -309,10 +309,16 @@ static int mdio_bus_phy_restore(struct device *dev)
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> /* The PHY needs to renegotiate. */
>>>>> - phydev->link = 0;
>>>>> - phydev->state = PHY_UP;
>>>>> + mutex_lock(&phydev->lock);
>>>>> + if (phy_is_started(phydev)) {
>>>>> + phydev->state = PHY_UP;
>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
>>>>> + phydev->link = 0;
>>>>> + phy_start_machine(phydev);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> - phy_start_machine(phydev);
>>>>>
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/phy.h b/include/linux/phy.h
>>>>> index 3ea87f7..dd21537 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/phy.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/phy.h
>>>>> @@ -898,6 +898,19 @@ static inline bool phy_is_pseudo_fixed_link(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> + * phy_is_started - Convenience function for testing whether a PHY is in
>>>>> + * a started state
>>>>> + * @phydev: the phy_device struct
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * The caller must have taken the phy_device mutex lock.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static inline bool phy_is_started(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&phydev->lock));
>>>>> + return phydev->state >= PHY_UP && phydev->state != PHY_HALTED;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> * phy_write_mmd - Convenience function for writing a register
>>>>> * on an MMD on a given PHY.
>>>>> * @phydev: The phy_device struct
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Kunihiko Hayashi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> ---
> Best Regards,
> Kunihiko Hayashi
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists