netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: Add ability to debug RGMII connections

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:23:16 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, cphealy@...il.com,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: Add ability to debug RGMII
 connections

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 04:09:30PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 16:01, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, that's the tricky part. You're sending a frame out, with no
> > > guarantee you'll get the same frame back in. So I'm not sure that any
> > > identifiers put inside the frame will survive.
> > > How do the tests pan out for you? Do you actually get to trigger this
> > > check? As I mentioned, my NIC drops the frames with bad FCS.
> >
> > My experience is, the NIC drops the frame and increments some the
> > counter about bad FCS. I do very occasionally see a frame delivered,
> > but i guess that is 1/65536 where the FCS just happens to be good by
> > accident. So i think some other algorithm should be used which is
> > unlikely to be good when the FCS is accidentally good, or just check
> > the contents of the packet, you know what is should contain.
> >
> > Are there any NICs which don't do hardware FCS? Is that something we
> > realistically need to consider?
> >
> > > Yes, but remember, nobody guarantees that a frame with DMAC
> > > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff on egress will still have it on its way back. Again,
> > > this all depends on how you plan to manage the rx-all ethtool feature.
> >
> > Humm. Never heard that before. Are you saying some NICs rewrite the
> > DMAN?
> >
> 
> I'm just trying to understand the circumstances under which this
> kernel thread makes sense.
> Checking for FCS validity means that the intention was to enable the
> reception of frames with bad FCS.
> Bad FCS after bad RGMII setup/hold times doesn't mean there's a small
> guy in there who rewrites the checksum. It means that frame octets get
> garbled. All octets are just as likely to get garbled, including the
> SFD, preamble, DMAC, etc.
> All I'm saying is that, if the intention of the patch is to actually
> process the FCS of frames before and after, then it should actually
> put the interface in promiscuous mode, so that frames with a
> non-garbled SFD and preamble can still be received, even though their
> DMAC was the one that got garbled.

Isn't the point of this to see which RGMII setting results in a working
setup?

So, is it not true that what we're after is receiving a _correct_ frame
that corresponds to the frame that was sent out?

Hence, if the DMAC got changed, it's irrelevent whether we received the
packet or not - since "no packet" || "changed packet" = fail.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up