netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ice: add support for Auto FEC with FEC disabled via ETHTOOL

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, 24 Aug 2022 16:32:32 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Greenwalt, Paul" <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ice: add support for Auto FEC with FEC
 disabled via ETHTOOL_SFECPARAM

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 23:13:47 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > > According to the folks I talked to what we have here, we didn't
> > > understand this as being from a standard, but if it is I'd love to
> > > read on it.  
> > 
> > Table 110C–1—Host and cable assembly combinations
> > in IEEE 802.3 2018, that's what I was thinking of.  
> 
> Ah. I am not sure if the state machine in firmware uses this table or
> not, but my guess is that it does.

Yeah, I thought that's what AUTO means, otherwise if everyone did their
own thing we wouldn't get link up without real autoneg enabled, right?
Now the table only specifies minimum FEC requirements, in your case (and
perhaps for others) No FEC does not get used, presumably the selection
is only done between R and RS?