netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool] sff-8079/8472: Fix missing sff-8472 output in netlink path

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: <Yqtpl+DLpH/YDnxy@shredder>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:34:15 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
To:     Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Daniel Juarez <djuarezg@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool] sff-8079/8472: Fix missing sff-8472 output in
 netlink path

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:50:09PM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> Commit 5b64c66f58d ("ethtool: Add netlink handler for
> getmodule (-m)") provided a netlink variant for getmodule
> but also introduced a regression as netlink output is different
> from ioctl output that provides information from A2h page
> via sff8472_show_all().
> 
> To fix this the netlink path should check a presence of A2h page
> by value of bit 6 in byte 92 of page A0h and if it is set then
> get A2h page and call sff8472_show_all().
> 
> Fixes: 5b64c66f58d ("ethtool: Add netlink handler for getmodule (-m)")
> Tested-by: Daniel Juarez <djuarezg@...n.ch>
> Co-authored-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>

With Michal's comment:

Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Tested-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>

Tested with both netlink and ioctl, but only with SFP modules that lack
diagnostic information, as I don't have these at hand.

Michal, note that for ethtool-next we plan to get rid of sfpdiag.c and
fold it into sfpid.c, so that the latter will be able to handle both
SFF-8079 and SFF-8472 using the same memory map. We felt that it's too
big of a change for the main branch.