netdev - Re: [PATCH net,stable] phy: sfp: fix high power modules without diag mode

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, 7 Dec 2021 00:39:57 +0900
From:   照山周一郎 <teruyama@...ingboard-inc.jp>
To:     Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,stable] phy: sfp: fix high power modules without diag mode

Hello, Mork!

Sorry for the late reply.
Thanks to you and Russell for your great contribution.

I will test Russell's patch in a few days.
Please wait a while.

2021年12月6日(月) 19:35 Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>:

>
> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> writes:
> >>
> >> > Thinking a little more, how about this:
> >> >
> >> >  drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> >> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >> > index 51a1da50c608..4c900d063b19 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >> > @@ -1752,17 +1752,20 @@ static int sfp_sm_probe_for_phy(struct sfp *sfp)
> >> >  static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct sfp *sfp)
> >> >  {
> >> >    u32 power_mW = 1000;
> >> > +  bool supports_a2;
> >> >
> >> >    if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_POWER_DECL))
> >> >            power_mW = 1500;
> >> >    if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_HIGH_POWER_LEVEL))
> >> >            power_mW = 2000;
> >> >
> >> > +  supports_a2 = sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance !=
> >> > +                          SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE ||
> >> > +                sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_DDM;
> >> > +
> >> >    if (power_mW > sfp->max_power_mW) {
> >> >            /* Module power specification exceeds the allowed maximum. */
> >> > -          if (sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance ==
> >> > -                  SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE &&
> >> > -              !(sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_DDM)) {
> >> > +          if (!supports_a2) {
> >> >                    /* The module appears not to implement bus address
> >> >                     * 0xa2, so assume that the module powers up in the
> >> >                     * indicated mode.
> >> > @@ -1779,11 +1782,24 @@ static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct sfp *sfp)
> >> >            }
> >> >    }
> >> >
> >> > +  if (power_mW <= 1000) {
> >> > +          /* Modules below 1W do not require a power change sequence */
> >> > +          return 0;
> >> > +  }
> >> > +
> >> > +  if (!supports_a2) {
> >> > +          /* The module power level is below the host maximum and the
> >> > +           * module appears not to implement bus address 0xa2, so assume
> >> > +           * that the module powers up in the indicated mode.
> >> > +           */
> >> > +          return 0;
> >> > +  }
> >> > +
> >> >    /* If the module requires a higher power mode, but also requires
> >> >     * an address change sequence, warn the user that the module may
> >> >     * not be functional.
> >> >     */
> >> > -  if (sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE && power_mW > 1000) {
> >> > +  if (sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE) {
> >> >            dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> >> >                     "Address Change Sequence not supported but module requires %u.%uW, module may not be functional\n",
> >> >                     power_mW / 1000, (power_mW / 100) % 10);
> >>
> >> Looks nice to me at least.  But I don't have the hardware to test it.
> >
> > I don't have the hardware either, so I can't test it - but it does need
> > testing. I assume as you've reported it and sent a patch, you know
> > someone who has run into this issue? It would be great if you could ask
> > them to test it and let us know if it solves the problem.
>
> Hello Teruyama!
>
> Any chance you can test this proposed fix from Russel?  I believe it
> should fix the issue with your NTT OCU SFP as well.
>
>
> Bjørn



--
株式会社スプリングボード
照山　周一郎
teruyama@...ingboard-inc.jp
http://www.springboard-inc.jp/
〒110-0005
東京都台東区上野3丁目2番2号
アイオス秋葉原505号室