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  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:   Mon, 25 May 2020 16:51:16 -0500
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, andrew@...n.ch,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        madalin.bucur@....nxp.com, calvin.johnson@....nxp.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/11] net: phy: Handle c22 regs presence better

Hi,

On 5/25/20 5:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 5/23/20 1:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 04:30:52PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>>> Until this point, we have been sanitizing the c22
>>>> regs presence bit out of all the MMD device lists.
>>>> This is incorrect as it causes the 0xFFFFFFFF checks
>>>> to incorrectly fail. Further, it turns out that we
>>>> want to utilize this flag to make a determination that
>>>> there is actually a phy at this location and we should
>>>> be accessing it using c22.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>> index f0761fa5e40b..2d677490ecab 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>>>> @@ -689,9 +689,6 @@ static int get_phy_c45_devs_in_pkg(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, int dev_addr,
>>>>    		return -EIO;
>>>>    	*devices_in_package |= phy_reg;
>>>> -	/* Bit 0 doesn't represent a device, it indicates c22 regs presence */
>>>> -	*devices_in_package &= ~BIT(0);
>>>> -
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>> @@ -742,6 +739,8 @@ static int get_phy_c45_ids(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 *phy_id,
>>>>    	int i;
>>>>    	const int num_ids = ARRAY_SIZE(c45_ids->device_ids);
>>>>    	u32 *devs = &c45_ids->devices_in_package;
>>>> +	bool c22_present = false;
>>>> +	bool valid_id = false;
>>>>    	/* Find first non-zero Devices In package. Device zero is reserved
>>>>    	 * for 802.3 c45 complied PHYs, so don't probe it at first.
>>>> @@ -770,6 +769,10 @@ static int get_phy_c45_ids(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 *phy_id,
>>>>    		return 0;
>>>>    	}
>>>> +	/* Bit 0 doesn't represent a device, it indicates c22 regs presence */
>>>> +	c22_present = *devs & BIT(0);
>>>> +	*devs &= ~BIT(0);
>>>> +
>>>>    	/* Now probe Device Identifiers for each device present. */
>>>>    	for (i = 1; i < num_ids; i++) {
>>>>    		if (!(c45_ids->devices_in_package & (1 << i)))
>>>> @@ -778,6 +781,13 @@ static int get_phy_c45_ids(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 *phy_id,
>>>>    		ret = _get_phy_id(bus, addr, i, &c45_ids->device_ids[i], true);
>>>>    		if (ret < 0)
>>>>    			return ret;
>>>> +		if (valid_phy_id(c45_ids->device_ids[i]))
>>>> +			valid_id = true;
>>>
>>> Here you are using your "devices in package" validator to validate the
>>> PHY ID value.  One of the things it does is mask this value with
>>> 0x1fffffff.  That means you lose some of the vendor OUI.  To me, this
>>> looks completely wrong.
>>
>> I think in this case I was just using it like the comment in
>> get_phy_device() "if the phy_id is mostly F's, there is no device here".
>>
>> My understanding is that the code is trying to avoid the 0xFFFFFFFF returns
>> that seem to indicate "bus ok, phy didn't respond".
>>
>> I just checked the OUI registration, and while there are a couple OUI's
>> registered that have a number of FFF's in them, none of those cases seems to
>> overlap sufficiently to cause this to throw them out. Plus a phy would also
>> have to have model+revision set to 'F's. So while might be possible, if
>> unlikely, at the moment I think the OUI registration keeps this from being a
>> problem. Particularly, if i'm reading the mapping correctly, the OUI mapping
>> guarantees that the field cannot be all '1's due to the OUI having X & M
>> bits cleared. It sort of looks like the mapping is trying to lose those
>> bits, by tossing bit 1 & 2, but the X & M are in the wrong octet (AFAIK, I
>> just read it three times cause it didn't make any sense).
> 
> I should also note that we have at least one supported PHY where one
> of the MMDs returns 0xfffe for even numbered registers and 0x0000 for
> odd numbered registers in one of the vendor MMDs for addresses 0
> through 0xefff - which has a bit set in the devices-in-package.
> 
> It also returns 0x0082 for almost every register in MMD 2, but MMD 2's
> devices-in-package bit is clear in most of the valid MMDs, so we
> shouldn't touch it.
> 
> These reveal the problem of randomly probing MMDs - they can return
> unexpected values and not be as well behaved as we would like them to
> be.  Using register 8 to detect presence may be beneficial, but that
> may also introduce problems as we haven't used that before (and we
> don't know whether any PHY that wrong.)  I know at least the 88x3310
> gets it right for all except the vendor MMDs, where the low addresses
> appear non-confromant to the 802.3 specs.  Both vendor MMDs are
> definitely implemented, just not with anything conforming to 802.3.

Yes, we know even for the NXP reference hardware, one of the phy's 
doesn't probe out correctly because it doesn't respond to the ieee 
defined registers. I think at this point, there really isn't anything we 
can do about that unless we involve the (ACPI) firmware in currently 
nonstandard behaviors.

So, my goals here have been to first, not break anything, and then do a 
slightly better job finding phy's that are (mostly?) responding 
correctly to the 802.3 spec. So we can say "if you hardware is ACPI 
conformant, and you have IEEE conformant phy's you should be ok". So, 
for your example phy, I guess the immediate answer is "use DT" or "find 
a conformant phy", or even "abstract it in the firmware and use a 
mailbox interface".



Powered by blists - more mailing lists