netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/20] ethernet: ucc_geth: assorted fixes and simplifications

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]

Message-ID: <0ebe1b4d-c22a-c361-89f0-8e6e48efde1b@prevas.dk>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:13:05 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To:     Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] ethernet: ucc_geth: assorted fixes and
 simplifications

On 08/12/2020 04.07, Qiang Zhao wrote:
> On 06/12/2020 05:12, Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk> wrote:
> 

>> I think patch 2 is a bug fix as well, but I'd like someone from NXP to comment.
> 
> It 's ok for me.

I was hoping for something a bit more than that. Can you please go check
with the people who made the hardware and those who wrote the manual
(probably not the same ones) what is actually up and down, and then
report on what they said.

It's fairly obvious that allocating 192 bytes instead of 128 should
never hurt (unless we run out of muram), but it would be nice with an
official "Yes, table 8-111 is wrong, it should say 192", or
alternatively, "No, table 8-53 is wrong, those MTU etc. fields don't
really exist". Extra points for providing details such as "first
revision of the IP had $foo, but that was never shipped in real
products, then $bar was changed", etc.

Thanks,
Rasmus