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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:15:41 +0000 From: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>, "jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rtnetlink: Add link-down reason to RTNL messages Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes: >> +enum rtnl_link_down_reason_major { >> + RTNL_LDR_OTHER, > > Does 'other' make any sense? Seem better to just not report anything > at all, or add a comment that more reasons should be added at the end > to reflect whatever the hardware or software can determine. You still have the minor code to give you some information. >> + RTNL_LDR_NO_CABLE, >> + RTNL_LDR_UNSUPPORTED_CABLE, >> + RTNL_LDR_AUTONEG_FAILURE, >> + RTNL_LDR_NO_LINK_PARTNER, >> + RTNL_LDR_LINK_TRAINING_FAILURE, >> + RTNL_LDR_LOGICAL_MISMATCH, >> + RTNL_LDR_REMOTE_FAULT, >> + RTNL_LDR_BAD_SIGNAL_INTEGRITY, >> + RTNL_LDR_CALIBRATION_FAILURE, >> + RTNL_LDR_POWER_BUDGET_EXCEEDED, >> +}; > > What about SFP cage empty?, i.e. no SFP, SFP+ module in the cage? An No cable? Maybe the name needs to change... > SFP can also report LOS. That does not appear to be any of the above. > Or that the core SFP code has been unable to read the EEPROM? We have My assumption was that cable with unreadable EEPROM is simply a bad cable. Does the admin actually care which particular part of the cable is at fault? > people reporting this problem at the moment. We also have that the > SERDES has not yet obtained sync to its peer, which you know from > phylink_mac_change. That probably means the peer is using a different > bit rate. We can add this. > I think it would be good if you handle the general case errors which > phylib and phylink can report, as well as the proprietary cases your > driver can report. We don't want this to be a Mellanox only API. Sure, I'll take a look at that. I didn't need to deal with PHY so far, so I need to figure out what's what.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists