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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 15:44:42 +0200
From:   Alexandra Winter <>
To:     Andrew Lunn <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,,, Heiko Carstens <>,
        Thorsten Winkler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] s390/qeth: update cached link_info for ethtool

On 04.08.22 15:08, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 10:53:33AM +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>> On 03.08.22 17:19, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 04:40:14PM +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>>>> Speed, duplex, port type and link mode can change, after the physical link
>>>> goes down (STOPLAN) or the card goes offline
>>> If the link is down, speed, and duplex are meaningless. They should be
>>> generally, it does not change on link up, so you could set this
>>> depending on the hardware type.
>>> 	Andrew
>> Thank you Andrew for the review. I fully understand your point.
>> I would like to propose that I put that on my ToDo list and fix
>> that in a follow-on patch to net-next.
>> The fields in the link_info control blocks are used today to generate
>> other values (e.g. supported speed) which will not work with *_UNKNOWN,
>> so the follow-on patch will be more than just 2 lines.
> So it sounds like your code is all backwards around. If you know what
> the hardware is, you know the supported link modes are, assuming its
> not an SFP and the SFP module is not plugged in. Those link modes
> should be independent of if the link is up or not. speed/duplex is
> only valid when the link is up and negotiation has finished.
> Since this is for net, than yes, maybe it would be best to go with a
> minimal patch to make your backwards around code work. But for
> net-next, you really should fix this properly. 
> 	  Andrew

Thank you Andrew. I agree with your analysis.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists