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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 01:16:38 +0200 From: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> Cc: Nathan Rossi <nathan@...hanrossi.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Fix port_hidden_wait to account for port_base_addr On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 00:33:15 +0200 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:33:59PM +0200, Marek BehĂșn wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:26:58 +0200 > > Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 03:31:43PM +0000, Nathan Rossi wrote: > > > > The other port_hidden functions rely on the port_read/port_write > > > > functions to access the hidden control port. These functions apply the > > > > offset for port_base_addr where applicable. Update port_hidden_wait to > > > > use the port_wait_bit so that port_base_addr offsets are accounted for > > > > when waiting for the busy bit to change. > > > > > > > > Without the offset the port_hidden_wait function would timeout on > > > > devices that have a non-zero port_base_addr (e.g. MV88E6141), however > > > > devices that have a zero port_base_addr would operate correctly (e.g. > > > > MV88E6390). > > > > > > > > Fixes: ea89098ef9a5 ("net: dsa: mv88x6xxx: mv88e6390 errata") > > > > > > That is further back than needed. And due to the code moving around > > > and getting renamed, you are added extra burden on those doing the > > > back port for no actual gain. > > > > > > Please verify what i suggested, 609070133aff1 is better and then > > > repost. > > > > The bug was introduced by ea89098ef9a5. > > I have to disagree with that. ea89098ef9a5 adds: > > mv88e6390_hidden_wait() > > The mv88e6390_ means it should be used with the mv88e6390 family. And > all members of that family have port offset 0. There is no bug here. > > 609070133aff1 renames it to mv88e6xxx_port_hidden_wait(). It now has > the generic mv88e6xxx_ prefix, so we can expect it to work with any > device. But it does not. This is where the bug has introduced. You are right. My bad, sorry. Marek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists