netdev - Re: mv88e6240 configuration broken for B850v3

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: <20211206185008.7ei67jborz7tx5va@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:50:08 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: mv88e6240 configuration broken for B850v3

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:37:44PM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 20:31 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:26:25PM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 17:44 +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 17:25 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Adding Russell to Cc:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm currently in the process of updating the GE B850v3 [1] to
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > newer kernel than the one it's currently running. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which kernel exactly. We like bug reports against net-next, or
> > > > > at
> > > > > least the last -rc.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I tested using v5.15-rc3 and that was also affected.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I've just tested v5.16-rc4 (sorry - just realised I previously
> > > wrote
> > > v5.15-rc3, it was v5.16-rc3...) and that was exactly the same.
> > 
> > Just to clarify: you're saying that you're on v5.16-rc4 and that if
> > you
> > revert commit 3be98b2d5fbc ("net: dsa: Down cpu/dsa ports phylink
> > will
> > control"), the link works again?
> > 
> 
> Correct
> 
> > It is a bit strange that the external ports negotiate at 10Mbps/Full,
> > is that the link speed you intend the ports to work at?
> 
> Yes, that's 100% intentional due to what's connected to to those ports
> and the environment it works in.
> 
> Martyn

Just out of curiosity, can you try this change? It looks like a simple
case of mismatched conditions inside the mv88e6xxx driver between what
is supposed to force the link down and what is supposed to force it up:

diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
index 20f183213cbc..d235270babf7 100644
--- a/net/dsa/port.c
+++ b/net/dsa/port.c
@@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ int dsa_port_link_register_of(struct dsa_port *dp)
 		if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(dp->dn) || phy_np) {
 			if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down)
 				ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down(ds, port,
-					MLO_AN_FIXED, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
+					MLO_AN_PHY, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
 			return dsa_port_phylink_register(dp);
 		}
 		return 0;
-- 
2.25.1