netdev - Re: PHY firmware update method

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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:12:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PHY firmware update method

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:28:13 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> If we want to make the PHY a component of an existing devlink for a
> MAC, we somehow have to find that devlink instance. A PHY is probably
> a property of a port, so we can call netdev_to_devlink_port(), which
> gives us a way into devlink.
> 
> However, the majority of MAC drivers don't have a devlink
> instance. What do we do then? Have phylib create the devlink instance
> for the MAC driver? That seems very wrong.
> 
> Which is why i was thinking the PHY should have its own devlink
> instance.

Tricky stuff, how would you expose the topology of the system to 
the user? My initial direction would also be component. Although 
it may be weird if MAC has a way to flash "all" components in one go,
and that did not flash the PHY :S

Either way I don't think we can avoid MACs having a devlink instance
because there needs to be some form of topology formed.