netdev - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: ethernet: Add driver for Sunplus SP7021

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:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:22:32 +0000
From:   Wells Lu 呂芳騰 <wells.lu@...plus.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Wells Lu <wellslutw@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "p.zabel@...gutronix.de" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Vincent Shih 施錕鴻 <vincent.shih@...plus.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: ethernet: Add driver for Sunplus SP7021

Hi, 


> > > > +static const char def_mac_addr[ETHERNET_MAC_ADDR_LEN] = {
> > > > +	0xfc, 0x4b, 0xbc, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
> > >
> > > This does not have the locally administered bit set. Should it? Or
> > > is this and address from your OUI?
> >
> > This is default MAC address when MAC address in NVMEM is not found.
> > Fc:4b:bc:00:00:00 is OUI of "Sunplus Technology Co., Ltd.".
> > Can I keep this? or it should be removed?
> 
> Please add a comment about whos OUI it is.
> 
> It is however more normal to use a random MAC address if no other MAC address is available.
> That way, you avoid multiple devices on one LAN using the same default MAC address.

Yes, I'll add a comment about the OUI and also use 'get_random_int() % 255' 
to generate the latest 3 octets (controller specific).


> > > > +	if (mac->next_ndev) {
> > > > +		struct net_device *ndev2 = mac->next_ndev;
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (!netif_carrier_ok(ndev2) && (reg & PORT_ABILITY_LINK_ST_P1)) {
> > > > +			netif_carrier_on(ndev2);
> > > > +			netif_start_queue(ndev2);
> > > > +		} else if (netif_carrier_ok(ndev2) && !(reg & PORT_ABILITY_LINK_ST_P1)) {
> > > > +			netif_carrier_off(ndev2);
> > > > +			netif_stop_queue(ndev2);
> > > > +		}
> > >
> > > Looks very odd. The two netdev should be independent.
> >
> > I don't understand your comment.
> > ndev checks PORT_ABILITY_LINK_ST_P0
> > ndev2 checks PORT_ABILITY_LINK_ST_P1
> > They are independent already.
> 
> I would try to remove the mac->next_ndev. I think without that, you will get a cleaner
> abstraction. You might want to keep an array of mac pointers in your top level shared
> structure.

Yes, I'll define a array (pointer to struct net_dev or mac) in driver private (shared) 
structure to access to all net devices. No more mac->next_ndev;.


> 	 Andrew

Thank you very much for your review.

Best regards,
Wells