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]

Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:48:50 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: mv88e6240 configuration broken for B850v3

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:06:55AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > mv88e6xxx_software_reset() does not fully reinitialise the switch.
> > > To quote one switch manual for the SWReset bit "Register values are not
> > > modified." That means if the link was forced down previously by writing
> > > to the port control register, the port remains forced down until
> > > software changes that register to unforce the link, or to force the
> > > link up.
> > 
> > Ouch, this is pretty unfortunate if true.
> 
> Come on. Do you really think Russell is making this up?

I didn't say it isn't true, I just lacked the energy to research this
too last night in the documentation I happened to have. I did find that
quote about the SWReset bit now.

But I did also write a full email after that phrase, making an argument
that still did hold if what was said about the mv88e6xxx resets was true.