netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: phy: add remote fault support

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:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:07:34 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: phy: add remote fault support

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:09:48PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:37:46 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Does this dovetail well with ETHTOOL_A_LINKSTATE_EXT_STATE /
> > > ETHTOOL_A_LINKSTATE_EXT_SUBSTATE ?
> > > 
> > > That's where people who read extended link state out of FW put it
> > > (and therefore it's read only now).  
> > 
> > I did wonder about that. But this is to do with autoneg which is part
> > of ksetting. Firmware hindered MAC drivers also support ksetting
> > set/get.  This patchset is also opening the door to more information
> > which is passed via autoneg. It can also contain the ID the link peer
> > PHY, etc. This is all part of 802.3, where as
> > ETHTOOL_A_LINKSTATE_EXT_STATE tends to be whatever the firmware
> > offers, not something covered by a standard.
> 
> I see, yeah, I think you're right.
> 
> But I'm missing the bigger picture. I'm unclear on who is supposed 
> to be setting the fault user space or kernel / device?

It is also a bit unclear, but at the moment, i think user
space. However, i can see the kernel making use of maybe RF TEST to
ask the link peer to go quiet in order to perform a cable test.

Oleksij, what are your use cases? Maybe add something to patch 0/X
indicating how you plan to make use of this?

	 Andrew