netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: prevent 2500BASEX mode override

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:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:47:56 +0100
From:   Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>
To:     Nathan Rossi <nathan@...hanrossi.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Rossi <nathan.rossi@...i.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: prevent 2500BASEX mode override

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:15:59 +0000
Nathan Rossi <nathan@...hanrossi.com> wrote:

> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 54aa942eed..5c52906b29 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -650,6 +650,13 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_validate(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  	if (chip->info->ops->phylink_validate)
>  		chip->info->ops->phylink_validate(chip, port, mask, state);
>  
> +	/* Advertise 2500BASEX only if 1000BASEX is not configured, this
> +	 * prevents phylink_helper_basex_speed from always overriding the
> +	 * 1000BASEX mode since auto negotiation is always enabled.
> +	 */
> +	if (state->interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX)
> +		phylink_clear(mask, 2500baseX_Full);
> +

I don't quite like this. This problem should be either solved in
phylink_helper_basex_speed() or somewhere in the mv88e6xxx code, but near
the call to phylink_helper_basex_speed().

Putting a solution to the behaviour of phylink_helper_basex_speed() it
into the validate() method when phylink_helper_basex_speed() is called
from a different place will complicate debugging in the future. If
we start solving problems in this kind of way, the driver will become
totally unreadable, IMO.

Marek