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  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]
Date:   Sat, 6 Apr 2019 18:25:25 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <>
To:     Florian Fainelli <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: improve link partner capability

On 05.04.2019 23:54, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/5/19 2:52 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 05.04.2019 23:38, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 05.04.2019 23:27, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>> +	if (linkmode_test_bit(ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_1000baseT_Half_BIT,
>>>>> +			      phydev->supported))
>>>>> +		phydev->is_gigabit_capable = 1;
>>>>> +	if (linkmode_test_bit(ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_1000baseT_Full_BIT,
>>>>> +			      phydev->supported))
>>>>> +		phydev->is_gigabit_capable = 1;
>>>>> +
>>>> What i'm trying to get at is, why do we need this bit of the patch?
>>>> Why do we need this flag? The hardware should tell us if it can do
>>>> gigabit.
>>> The code to query BMSR_ESTATEN and MII_ESTATUS is in genphy_read_status.
>>> However we also have to cover the case that this function isn't used.
>>> Therefore I query phydev->supported before the speed could be limited.
>>> (relying on the PHY driver not lying about gigabit capability)
>>> This part of the patch is directly before of_set_phy_supported().
>>> I just see that we can re-use is_gigabit_capable also in
>>> genphy_config_advert.
>>> Of course I can read in every place the hardware for gigabit support.
>>> But IMO this creates unnecessary code duplication.
>> I just see that we can reuse is_gigabit_capable also in
>> genphy_config_advert().
>> And when checking occurrences of BMSR_ESTATEN there seems to be more
>> work waiting: In swphy BMSR_ESTATEN is set, but MII_ESTATUS isn't
>> configured. It just works by chance becausing reading this register
>> returns the default 0xffff.
> It is not clear to me what we are trying to optimize for here, given
> everything is pretty much a slow path anyway. I am concerned though
> about mis-behaving PHYs where caching of BMSR_ESTATEN could result in
> incorrect behaviors, I don't have any data to back that claim, but
> reading the registers should always be the safest way to determine what
> HW is capable of (famous last words). Not feeling strongly about either
> direction though...

At this point I have to quote Einstein:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Means I'll spend few more thoughts on it ..

Powered by blists - more mailing lists