netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/ncsi: add dummy response handler for Intel boards

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:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:42:05 +0300
From:   Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
CC:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam@...dozajonas.com>,
        "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/ncsi: add dummy response handler for Intel
 boards

On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 10:03 +0000, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 12:28, Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Add the dummy response handler for Intel boards to prevent incorrect
> > handling of OEM commands.
> 
> What do you mean?

When you don't have proper OEM handler for your MFR_ID, you'll get this as
example:
[   39.073873] ftgmac100 1e660000.ethernet eth1: Received unrecognized OEM
packet with MFR-ID (0x157)
[   39.082974] ftgmac100 1e660000.ethernet eth1: NCSI: Handler for packet type
0xd0 returned -2

> Is this to handle the response to the link up OEM command? If so,
> include it in the same patch.

It is not the response, it's provides same way of handling as for broadcom and
mellanox manufacturers.

> Can you check that the response is to the link up command and print a
> warning if not?

Yes, I can. As example, ncsi_oem_smaf_mlx doesn't check the response, for me
it's like unidirectional commands, same for this one.

Thanks.