netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/4] ethtool: Add ability to query transceiver modules' firmware information

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: <20211129094321.31092e40@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:43:21 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, andrew@...n.ch,
        mkubecek@...e.cz, pali@...nel.org, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
        vadimp@...dia.com, mlxsw@...dia.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/4] ethtool: Add ability to query
 transceiver modules' firmware information

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 19:45:27 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> + * @committed: Whether the image is run upon resets.

Isn't activation tangential to state of the image?

> + * @valid: Whether the image is runnable and persistently stored completely
> + *	undamaged.

Is it worth distinguishing empty vs broken? How do we let the user know
that the device has downgraded the FW image because of bad flash vs the
device was never updated? Some statistic?